Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

WINCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SCOTTISH AMICABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Ordnance Factory, Radway Green (Redundancy)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply how many workers at the Royal Ordnance factory at Radway Green have been declared redundant in the past six months; how many have asked to be declared redundant; and how many new workers have been taken on in the same period.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The answer to the first two parts of the Question is "None, Sir." Six hundred and fifty-two workers have been taken on.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that according to several of my constituents he has been misinformed? Is he aware that several workers have been made redundant in the Admiralty branch of the factory, and that some workers have asked to be declared redundant because they are fed up with the waste of time and money that goes on in some of the departments of the factory?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the hon. Member means by workers asking to be declared redundant. If it means resignation that is, of course, another matter. During the last six months, about 200 workers out of a total strength of some 3,300 have resigned from the factory for domestic and other reasons. That turnover of labour is well below the average for the engineering industry as a whole.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister explain why some of the workers at the factory are asked to stay on there although they are idle for as long as three weeks?

Mr. Sandys: That is quite a different question.

United States Steel Deliveries

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply what reply he has received from the United States authorities in connection with his representations concerning the effect on British industry which would


be caused by an interruption of steel supplies arising from the American steel strike.

Mr. Sandys: The United States authorities have assured us that they fully appreciate the serious effects for us of any interruption in the deliveries of steel from America. However, the situation is, of course, largely outside their control.

Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent this strike, now in its 28th day, is likely to affect deliveries under the Anglo-American steel contract? Will he also confirm that whatever happens our export programme will not be hampered by any interruption in deliveries from the United States?

Mr. Sandys: I cannot possibly give such assurances. All I would say to the hon. Member is that, on the latest figures available, deliveries from America are fully up to schedule. The future, naturally, depends entirely on how long the strike lasts.

Minister's Visit, Coventry

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply what discussions he had with trade union representatives during his recent official visit to Coventry

Mr. Sandys: During my brief visit to Coventry I had no formal discussions either with trade unions or employers.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact was widely publicised that he had discussions with the employers? Is he further aware that in Coventry and the Midlands generally there is a widespread feeling that he is not putting the workers in the picture in the same way as his predecessor did? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he and his Government still subscribe to the policy of joint consultation in industry?

Mr. Sandys: When I pay longer visits to cities it is my practice to invite representatives of the trade unions to meet me so that we can discuss common problems, as I did the other day at Sheffield and earlier at Manchester. I was only in Coventry for a few hours, and there was no time to have discussions either with the employers or the trade unions. I was introduced to a number of representatives of the trade unions when I went round the factories.

Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the first possible opportunity of having formal consultations with trade unionists in the Midlands so that they may appreciate and understand his point of view and his programme in connection with re-armament and the export trade?

Public Services (Rayon Textiles)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made by the working party which has been considering the use of rayon textiles by the public services.

Mr. Sandys: The suitability of rayon fabrics for Service and Civil Defence use has been re-examined. As a result the rayon industry will shortly be given an opportunity to tender for goods to a value of about £1½ million. In addition, the War Office and Air Ministry have decided to undertake troop trials of drill uniforms, women's underwear, pyjamas and sheets made of rayon fabric, with a view to considering a more extensive use of these materials for Service requirements.

Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that while the amount which he states is not great in relation to the total production of the industry, it is a considerable advance on the £16,000 worth which was the original amount ordered? May I thank him very much for the work which has been done by the working party, presided over by his hon. Friend, which will give great encouragement to the industry?

Mr. Sandys: I thank the hon. Lady. It is at any rate a start, and I hope it will lead to bigger things.

Civil Servant (Retirement)

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Minister of Supply for what reason Mr. Hugh H. Baker employed in the contracts branch of his Department has been dismissed.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Baker, who is a temporary civil servant, has been retired on reaching the age of 65, as part of the staff reductions at the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend say how he reconciles that policy with the appeal by the Prime Minister to employers to retain older men


employment? Is he aware that this officer has already accepted demotion twice in order to retain employment?

Mr. Sandys: The retirement at the age of 65 of a number of civil servants is part of the scheme of staff reductions which has been worked out in agreement with the stall side of the Whitley Council of the Ministry. We consider that it is right and desirable to reduce the number of civil servants, and, much as I appreciate the hardship in certain cases, if we are to reduce numbers, we cannot at the same time keep everybody on.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: What is the use of dismissing a man of 65 who then draws his pension and is unemployable, and retaining younger people who could be employed in other capacities?

Mr. Sandys: I understand that the gentleman in question has good prospects of getting another job.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: indicated dissent.

Jet Aircraft (Syria)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Supply how many jet aircraft, produced under the order of his Department, have been sent to Syria.

Mr. Sandys: None, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that a statement appeared in a reputable Scottish paper, "The Scotsman," recently, to the effect that some jet aircraft had been sent to Syria, will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?

Mr. Sandys: I have no need to make further inquiries, but the question of the right hon. Gentleman will correct any misstatements which may have been made.

Steel Allocation Scheme

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Minister of Supply in what way he is proposing to vary the principles on which the steel allocation scheme is being administered.

Mr. Sandys: No changes are proposed in the principles on which the steel allocation scheme is administered, but increased preference will be given to firms capable of expanding their exports.

Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that the principles being employed by the present

Government are those which were employed by the late Government, in that the steel allocation is varied quite materially according to the export performance and prospects of various firms? In other words, there is no change at all.

Mr. Sandys: As I said, there is no change in principles, but we are putting even greater emphasis on exports, particularly exports of goods which have a high conversion value in non-sterling currencies.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both sides of British industry generally are very happy and satisfied with the administration of this rationing scheme, and particularly the special applications that are made to his Department for consideration for more export work?

Mr. Ewart: Does the Minister include the shipbuilding industry in his vital exporting industries? If so, would he note that there is a shortage of steel in that industry at present?

Mr. Sandys: There is, of course, a shortage of steel in every industry, but I personally am responsible only for those industries for which the Ministry of Supply is the sponsoring authority.

Major Anstruther-Gray: is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Scottish firms are getting their fair share of this allocation, as I have had some information which leads me to wonder whether they are?

Mr. Sandys: I have had talks with representatives of the Scottish interests and industries and I do not think that it would do Scotland any good to look at the figures too closely. If anything, they are getting more than their fair share.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent he controls and co-ordinates the issue of certificates by other Government Departments permitting the purchase of steel by local authorities, nationalised industries and private firms.

Mr. Sandys: Not at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that there are vast quantities of chits for steel in circulation and for which there is no steel, and as it is sometimes


months before the chits are honoured, does not that indicate—apart from the new priorities which he is seeking to inject into the present system of allocation—that the system of steel allocation certificates is breaking down and is on the verge of collapse?

Mr. Sandys: I think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has just said, that it is working surprisingly well.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But does the Minister think so?

Mr. Ewart: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to secure an adequate supply of file steel to the file manufacturing industry.

Mr. Sandys: The file steel manufacturers are in direct touch with the British Iron and Steel Federation, who are doing all they can to help them obtain increased supplies of the special steels they require.

Mr. Ewart: Is the Minister aware that a firm in Sunderland advised me that they are receiving only about 79 per cent. of their paper allocation, and that unless this position is improved they would be facing redundancy at the end of two or three months? Does he realise the importance of this industry, the difficulties they are experiencing in procuring the special type of steel they require, and the part they are playing in the export industry?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. We fully realise the importance of this industry. As I have explained to the House on numerous occasions, the difficulty is not so much the quantity of steel to match the allocation, but the production of the right type of steel. This industry requires a very special type of alloy steel. We have been taking very active measures in the last few months to increase the output of alloy steel, and there are already signs of an appreciable increase in production.

Scottish Steel Industry

Mr. Brooman-White: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on the progress of measures being taken to meet the difficulties of the Scottish steel industry.

Mr. Sandys: The main cause of the difficulty has been the serious fall in scrap imports. However, of the reduced quantities of scrap now being imported, Scottish steel producers are receiving double the proportion they received a year ago. In addition, special measures have been taken to increase their supplies of iron ore, pig iron and American ingots. In this connection, I would appeal to all in Scotland to give their active support to the present scrap drive, and so assist Scottish steel producers.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this answer may give considerable encouragement to the Scottish steel industry in its difficulties and also bring some benefit to Scottish steel consumers, who may have been having trouble in having their allocation met?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a very big American factory which was to have manufactured agricultural machinery, has, owing to the shortage of steel, been compelled to stop the negotiations for its factory in East Kilbride? Is he aware that this cornering of steel priorities for re-armament is ruining some of Scotland's most important industries?

Mr. Sandys: We are trying, so far as we can, to supplement the production of steel in Scotland. One measure which has been taken—and again I apologise to those who are not Scottish—is to send to Scotland more than her proportionate share of the steel received from America.

Mr. Nicholson: What justification is there for favouring one part of the United Kingdom against another?

Mr. Sandys: It is not a question of favouring one part of the United Kingdom against another. The output of steel in Scotland is smaller in relation to requirements there than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. McInnes: The Minister has said that Scotland is now receiving double the proportion of imported scrap that she had before. What percentage is that of the United Kingdom total?

Mr. Sandys: Scotland is receiving over half of all the scrap imported into the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Refusal of Work

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of National Insurance for how long a period, under his regulations, a man may refuse work offered to him before the National Assistance Board refuses to support him.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): Refusal of work does not itself relieve the Board of their duty to meet need, but a person who persistently refuses to maintain himself is liable to prosecution. There are no rules as to when proceedings should be taken in a particular case as the decision must depend on the facts.

Major Lloyd: Can my right hon. Friend, from his experience, say whether there are more than a very few people who can live on the State for an indefinite period without any action being taken?

Mr. Peake: This is a responsibility of the Board and they are taking proceedings in the way I have mentioned in a steadily increasing number of cases.

Mr. J. Paton: In such a case the man has an absolute right of appeal against any decision made against him?

Mr. Peake: I am not an expert on the proceedings of magistrates' courts. In cases of prosecution I imagine that where a point of law is involved there is a right of appeal.

Mr. Paton: I am talking about the tribunals.

Mr. Peake: There is no appeal, as far as I know, from the decision of the local appeal tribunal in these cases.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulty of assessing capacity for work and the differences of opinion expressed in almost all these cases, and will he bear in mind that in nearly all of them medical evidence can be put forward stating that the person is unfit for work?

Mr. Peake: I am sure that the Assistance Board take those considerations into account.

Family Allowances (Use)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will take the necessary steps to require all those in receipt of family allowances to sign a

declaration that these allowances will be used solely for the benefit of the children and for no other purpose.

Mr. Peake: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is common knowledge that at least some of this National Assistance money is used for other purposes, such as betting on pools and dogs, and that the other day I heard of a man who said, "Let's go and draw the beer money." Will my right hon. Friend stop this misuse of the taxpayers' money?

Mr. Peake: I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will realise that, in the case of the great majority who are good parents, these inquiries would be vexatious and unnecessary and that, in the case of the bad parents, they would be futile. As I believe that my hon. Friend subscribes to the principle of setting the people free, I should, therefore, deplore providing an additional form to be filled up.

Prescription Charges (Refund)

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of National Insurance what instructions have been given by his Department, or by the National Assistance Board to his, and their, officials to assist old age and other pensioners and enable them to pay for doctors' prescriptions when sick or disabled and without financial means to pay the 1s. charge demanded.

Mr. Peake: This is a matter for the National Assistance Board, whose officers have been instructed to see that pensioners not receiving National Assistance get help with prescription charges if they can show that their resources, by Assistance standards, are insufficient to enable them to meet the charges.

Mr. Keenan: Does the Minister appreciate the need, under the new circumstances, for guidance from the Ministry? Is he aware that during the week-end I looked around at Assistance Board offices and chemists' shops to see what help was given to a pensioner not in receipt of assistance? Will he do more than has been done, because pensioners who are not in receipt of National Assistance are not going to the doctor because they cannot afford to pay the 1s.?

Mr. Peake: The officers of the Board are directed to give assistance in these


cases. I am told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that there is publicity in chemists' shops in the form of posters informing people about what can be done.

Mr. T. Brown: Will the Minister and his Department co-operate with the Assistance Board to secure more publicity indicating that those not in receipt of National Assistance can get help if they are in need? At present there is no advertisement in the post offices or in other places and these people have to depend absolutely upon the visits of one of the Assistance Board officers. It is wrong that these people should not be aware that they are in a position to get help if it is needed.

Mr. Peake: I have been informed that posters are set out in the chemists' shops giving information on this point, but I will certainly have the matter looked into.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that there is a further complication in that there are old people who are not able to read and understand forms containing all these instructions? Does he appreciate that it is a great embarrassment to chemists when these old people, who have not the money and do not know much about forms and collecting the 1s., come into their shops? Could not there be something more simple to give help to old age pensionsers so that they can get the 1s. on their pensions card alone?

Mr. Peake: I realise the difficulty of dealing with people who cannot read the publicity available and I will see whether it is possible to institute any other method of conveying the information.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that there is only one National Assistance Board office to serve the whole of Leicester; and if he will make arrangements to provide branch offices so that applicants for refund of 1s. paid for a prescription may not have to spend as much as 10d., in some cases, for fares to collect 1s.

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that in order to apply for a refund of the 1s. paid for a prescription, a person, not in receipt of supplementation from the National Assistance Board, may have to travel long distances to National Assist-

ance Board offices and incur omnibus fares; and, in view of this, will he make arrangements either to have the omnibus fare refunded or arrange for a National Assistance Board visitor to call at applicants' homes to investigate their need.

Mr. Peake: It is not necessary for persons seeking a refund of these charges to go to the Board's offices. Those receiving National Assistance can obtain a refund when they draw their weekly payments, generally at the Post Office. Others whose resources are inadequate by Assistance standards to meet the charges can apply to the Board by post on a pre-paid form obtainable at any Post Office, and, if necessary, the Board's officer will visit them.

Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the cost of the postage itself is a reduction from the amount that the person will receive. If so, what does he propose to do about that? Does he propose to send out mobile units or to have peripatetic repayment distributors travelling around the country giving back the 1s.?

Mr. Peake: The form available at all Post Offices where the people draw their payments is a pre-paid form and sending it to the Board will not involve the recipient in any expenditure.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it would take to visit some of these people who make application by using the form from the Post Office, because if it takes longer than a week they will be without the 1s. for that period? Cannot he arrange for a suitable notice to be placed in post offices to the effect that people can obtain a form for a visit from an officer of the National Assistance Board if they are not in receipt of supplementation and require to have the 1s. refunded?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I might be allowed to send the hon. Lady a copy of the prepaid form which is available in post offices.

Mrs. Braddock: I was not referring to that notice. Does the Minister realise that people still do not know that they can get payment if they are not in receipt of National Assistance? Is he not aware that some extensive publicity by his Department is needed to make that better known?

Mr. Peake: I will see that the attention of the Board is drawn to that point.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the Minister consider what is obviously the best form, that is, to include a form in the pension books issued to people? Can the Minister tell us the additional number of officers the Board will need to employ to do this work?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. I could not say without notice.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that though I have seen the notices displayed in chemists' shops, I do not think that they are very clear? They are rather small and difficult for people to see from a distance. Does he realise that the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) is certainly one which requires examination? Would my right hon. Friend consider making a comprehensive statement on the B.B.C. so that the whole of the procedure may be thoroughly well understood by the people who have to deal with it?

Mr. Peake: I have already promised to convey to the Assistance Board the suggestion made by the hon. Lady opposite.

Mr. T. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the question arises whether these people can be told how to reclaim the 1s. for the prescription? It is no use putting up a notice in the chemist's shop; the place for the notice is the place where they receive their National Assistance allowance, and that is at the post office. Will the Minister see that notices are displayed in the post offices?

Mr. Peake: I will certainly have that point looked into.

Reynaud's Disease

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware of the disquiet amongst insured contributors in certain occupations arising from the failure to schedule Reynaud's disease within the terms of the Industrial Injuries Act and the anomalies created by conflicting decisions of the High Court in such cases; and if he will take action to schedule this disease.

Mr. Peake: As the hon. Member knows, the question whether this disease should be prescribed was referred by my

predecessor to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council for consideration, and I am awaiting their report.

Mr. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the present law affecting these cases has given rise to quite serious injustices to many people who have been disabled in the course of their employment? Is he further aware that common law judgments are being applied as principles in the settlement of some of these cases by the Commissioners? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, further, if he is also aware that, as recently as last week, Sir Vincent Tewson, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, informed me that, in his view, the delay in getting these claims properly investigated is quite unjustifiable, and will he bring all the pressure he can upon the appropriate committee to bring forward their report and get these cases settled?

Mr. Peake: I think the hon. Member has been informed that this is a very technical question. These cases are referred to the Industrial Diseases Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council, and they are in touch with the Medical Research Council on some of the medical questions which arise. They will, in due course, receive the advice of the Medical Research Council, and that, no doubt, will enable them to make a recommendation to me one way or the other.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While appreciating that the Minister must await the recommendations of the Committee on whether the disease is to be scheduled as an industrial disease under the Act, since a decision was given under workmen's compensation legislation that the disease is due to an accident arising out of the course of employment, do I gather from the Minister's answer that the Ministry will now accept it as an accident, pending the review of the question which is being made by the Committee?

Mr. Peake: There was one case under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1946, before the Court of Appeal, and another case before the House of Lords, on which a rather different decision was reached, in 1948. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the decided cases, but I am bound by the decision of the Commissioners under the Industrial Injuries Act, which decided that this disease did not fall within the terms of the Schedule.

Mr. Griffiths: This is rather an important point. Do I gather that the question of what is and what is not an accident is to be within the power of the Commissioners under the Industrial Injuries Act, to offset and render nought a decision of the House of Lords on a material point under the workmen's compensation provisions?

Mr. Peake: I think the right hon. Gentleman should refer to the actual cases of 1946 and 1948, which are, to some extent, in conflict.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Opencast Mining Operations

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many applications to date he has received for compensation resulting from damage caused by opencast coal operations; and how many have been met in full.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): These claims are settled by the Ministry of Works, and I understand that 12,993 were received up to 31st May, 1952. They are generally settled by agreement and it is not possible to say how many have been met in full.

Miss Ward: As I do not find that answer entirely satisfactory, may I ask my right hon. Friend, for the protection of the people concerned, whether he would make inquiries to see how many people's claims have been met in full, because it would not be very difficult to find the figure? I am suspicious of what is going on about this matter.

Mr. Lloyd: I will see whether the information 'could be obtained without unnecessary labour, which I do not think my hon. Friend would want, but I can assure her that there is no rule at all that claims should not be met in full.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the rehabilitation of the opencast coal sites in Monk Seaton have been held up contrary to the assurances given that this land would be restored without delay.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am informed by the National Coal Board that the work of restoration is now proceeding normally.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when I raised this question before there was great activity on this coal site, and that when the public interest had been satisfied the work ceased? Will he give me an assurance that it will not cease again until that site is rehabilitated?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware that the people living near this site have had a good deal to complain of, but my information is that the time when they had most to complain of was last summer, and that efforts were made in the autumn to restore the land. I will make inquiries, because I would not like people who have suffered so much in the past to be suffering again.

Mr. T. Brown: Is the Minister aware that most of us are delighted that now that his Department have taken over full control of opencast mining operations we shall get a fairer deal than we have had hitherto, but is he not aware that there is a lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the county agricultural executive committee and the Ministry of Fuel and Power? Will he see that there is better co-ordination and co-operation so that the grievances of these people, which have existed for many months, will be rectified?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the matter will proceed more smoothly now, because there were undoubtedly difficulties, to which the National Coal Board are paying great attention.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Minister not go into the question of the disastrous wrecking of agricultural land by opencast coal mining?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different matter, and I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend once again to remember that the Government do not do this for any reason except the very great need of coal, especially for export.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But is not food as important as coal?

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authority had reason to complain recently to the National Coal Board about the hold-up, and that the local authority as well as myself, and other people concerned, will be very glad indeed to have this fresh assurance on the matter?

Stocks

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the nation's reserve stocks of coal at the latest available date; and to what extent, he estimates, additional supplies will be available during the coming winter for domestic consumption and for export, respectively.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: On 14th June, total distributed stocks were 15.4 million tons. It is too early in the summer to answer the second part of the Question.

Natural Resources (Utilisation)

Mr. J. T. Price: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by his Department to utilise more effectively the nation's coal resources with particular reference to inefficient stoking of industrial plants, failure to harness exhaust steam to the electrical grid and bad siting of power stations.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As the answer is necessarily somewhat long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Price: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we could release for export between 30 and 40 million tons of coal it would go a long way towards solving our economic difficulties? Will he therefore impress upon the industry and everybody who uses fuel that every factory which belches black smoke into the sky and every power station which raises the temperature of a river by 5 degrees is wasting our resources and ought to be restrained in the national interest?

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our lengthy debate on this topic on 7th March, when all these matters were adequately ventilated?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the stocks he intends to allow industry during the coming winter, and will he consider whether, if they go much above their normal target, which they have already reached, it will not encourage industry to economise as they should?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite appreciate that.

Following is the answer:

The Ministry's Scientific Branch is conducting research into new uses of fuel, new methods of generating and transmitting power, and the utilisation of marginal or hitherto untapped sources of energy. Scientific developments in the whole field of fuel and power are also being studied.

The Ministry has a complement of about 170 fuel engineers and technicians who give practical advice both to industrial and non-industrial establishments on measures to secure the best use of fuel and power. Sixteen mobile units, equipped with instruments, are available for detailed surveys to enable heat losses to be detected and remedies prescribed.

Ministry technicians are continually visiting firms to give instruction on correct methods of firing and boiler control to stokers on their own firing floors. Special demonstrations and lectures are organised for stokers in the various regions, and a "Stoker's Manual" (H.M.S.O., price 6d.) has been published. Collaboration between the Ministry and the educational authorities has resulted in courses in boiler-house practice being included as a normal part of the syllabus of technical colleges and institutes. Proposals for improving the efficiency of industrial stoking are under consideration by my Fuel Efficiency Advisory Committee.

The British Electricity Authority and the National Coal Board are now experimenting with pithead generation to utilise coal which would not otherwise be usable, and the construction of the super grid will make it possible to generate at the coalfields a much larger proportion than at present of the electricity now consumed in the south-east of England.

It is the policy of the Government and of the British Electricity Authority to encourage the development of joint steam and electricity production where it is likely to be economically justified and technically feasible. No satisfactory way, however, has yet been found of producing electricity as abundantly and as efficiently as the large power station does without at the same time wasting the heat from the condensers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Midland Board (Building Licence)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the amount of the building licence granted to the Midland Electricity Board in respect of the Gloucester City Electricity Centre which was officially opened on 5th November, 1951; and what steps he has taken to assure that no excess expenditure occurred.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: £15,000 was authorised in August, 1949, and I


am informed by the Board that they completed the work in October, 1951, at a total cost of £17,143 6s. 10d., and that the excess was due to the rise in the price of materials and unexpected difficulties with regard to the foundations. I am having the facts examined.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, who are members of the Consultative Committee for this area, asked this question some months ago, and were refused the essential information? In view of the fact that the Committee was set up for the primary purpose of providing such information for the benefit of consumers, can he say why, in this case, the information was withheld by the Midland Electricity Board?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir; I should want to make inquiries about that, but my hon. Friend would not be correct in saying that that body was a member of the Consultative Committee. It may have been one of the bodies referred to when the Consultative Committee was appointed.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is it not a fact that it is not one of the functions of the Consultative Committee to ask any such questions or to receive or provide any such information?

Mr. Lloyd: That may very well be so.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Minister will see that it is so from Section 7 of the Electricity Act, 1947.

Consumption and Demand

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentum increase or decrease, approximately, in electricity consumption for the first half of 1952 compared with similar periods in 1950 and 1951; and whether he is satisfied that generating capacity at British Electricity Authority power-houses is now ample to meet foreseeable demand in the winter of 1952–53.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Increases of 15.8 per cent. and 1.7 per cent., respectively.
The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir."

Private Generators

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what general direction he proposes to issue for the guidance of owners of private electricity generators,

whether steam or oil driven, and whether independent, or working in parallel with the grid, for maximum utilisation of such equipment during the winter of 1952–53.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Guidance on this subject will be given in the report of the sub-committee which has been considering load spreading for next winter. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour will be issuing this report shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Overseas Oil Refineries (British Tenders)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether he can give an assurance that British firms were asked to quote for the designing and erection of the new oil refineries at Aden and in other parts of the Commonwealth where developments are taking place under Government auspices;
(2) whether he can give an assurance that British firms are given the opportunity to tender for the designing and construction of oil refineries in this country, and in cases where British orders are placed in this country and abroad, and that such contracts are open to competition.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This is a matter for the oil companies concerned, but I am confident that they will continue to give British contracting firms the opportunity to tender for work which they are equipped to carry out.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the Minister any evidence to prove that British firms have ever been given the opportunity to tender for the designing and erection of these oil installations? My information is to the contrary. Could not the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter to the attention both of the oil companies and of the Americans and point out that unless the engineering industry, and indeed the shipbuilding industry, in this country are left some fields in which to exercise their labours we shall have to live on American charity for the rest of our lives? We must develop some lines of industry here and not have them completely absorbed by the Americans.

Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps take into account the fact


that this work of providing for the needs of the oil industry is a relatively new development in this country—a very important one—and that British firms, while they have had civil engineering experience, have not lad the experience of acting as main contractors. It is pleasing to record that the output of this industry in general has increased from £10 million before the war to £80 million at the present time.

Mr. Woodburn: Since the Government are very interested financially in the oil concerns, would the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that British engineering gets at least a look in in this important sphere?

Mr. Lloyd: I am in close touch with the association of manufacturers of this equipment.

Oil (Tanker Freights)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that tanker freights for oil are to be lowered from 185s. to 100s. per ton in the near future, a reduction equivalent to 4½d. per gallon carried; and whether, in view of this fact, he will ensure, in approving petrol price changes, that this reduction is passed on to the consumer in cheaper petrol.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am not aware of the particular reduction forecast by my hon. Friend, but full weight is given to such changes in reviewing oil prices.

Nationalised Premises (Political Parties)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power f he will make a statement as to the general directions he has given to the Boards of those publicly-owned industries for which he is responsible concerning the placing of their premises at the service of a political party.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I have given no general direction to the boards of the nationalised fuel and power industries on this subject.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have here a leaflet advertising the St. Pancras, North Conservative Association's Midsummer Market, that many of these leaflets were displayed last week on the counter of the

London Electricity Board's showrooms and the North Thames Gas Board's showrooms in Camden Town and that competitors in the cookery competition which is expressly designed to raise funds for the Conservative Party are instructed, on the back of the leaflet, to hand in their entries, with their entrance fees, to these showrooms on Saturday next?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I did make inquiries, and I have found that the facts which the hon. Gentleman has given are correct. It is quite clear that a mistake was made, but, if I may just say so, there is a general question which arises for consideration by the House. I believe that the most satisfactory method of getting these sorts of matters decided would be to have a conference, either through the usual channels or the party organisations, to ensure, absolutely clearly, that nothing wrong is done and that there is complete fairness between the parties.

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY LAW

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Attorney-General if he can now make a statement as to Government policy in relation to the amendment of the law affecting leasehold property.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I regret that I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave on 12th May.

Brigadier Medlicott: Having regard to the importance of the issues involved and the very large number of people affected, could the statement, when it is ready, be made in the form of a White Paper?

The Attorney-General: The matter will be very carefully considered, but I cannot give any such undertaking.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that a number of ground rent companies are touting owners of small dwelling-houses offering them terms for buying the freehold and that it is very difficult to give advice to such owners? When does he think he will have a statement to make, so that we can give advice to our constituents on the matter?

The Attorney-General: I cannot say by what date this decision will be made.


If the hon. Gentleman has any information to give me on the lines he is suggesting, I shall be very glad to consider it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the criticism made by his party, when in Opposition, when the previous Government were presenting a Bill dealing partially with leasehold, that this matter was not being dealt with by the Government at that time?

The Attorney-General: I shall try to remember everything.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

Prisoners of War (Repatriation)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the United Nations organisation that those prisoners in Korea who have refused repatriation on genuinely conscientious grounds, and who have convinced the authorities of their good faith, should be allowed to leave the camps and merge with the civilian population, or, alternatively, should be entrusted to a neutral power.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Both of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions will be borne in mind; but I should prefer to make no further statement at present.

Mr. Cocks: Would it not tend to shorten the armistice negotiations if this were done, as, obviously, if these men are no longer in the custody of the United Nations they cannot be exchanged?

Mr. Lloyd: It is certainly a matter which requires careful consideration, but there are certain aspects of it which had better not be ventilated in public.

Mr. A. Henderson: Can the Minister say when he expects to be in a position to tell the House the number of prisoners of war who have actually been screened and the categories into which they fall?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a Question dealing with part of that matter on the Order Paper today and I shall give certain information then. I hope to give a final answer when the process has been completed.

Colonel J. H. Harrison: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to take no

action on these lines which would prejudice the position of our own 960 prisoners of war in Communist hands?

Mr. Lloyd: That is certainly one of the matters to which I shall give attention.

Mr. S. Silverman: Can the Minister say how far it is true, as suggested in one of the Sunday papers yesterday, that the question of these prisoners has been greatly complicated by the indiscriminate arrest of South Korean civilians during the retreat 18 months ago, and that a great number of these civilians have got mixed up in the prisoner-of-war camps with others who are prisoners of war?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a category of people called "civilian internees" who have been dealt with separately, and, at the moment, satisfactorily. They have been detached from the other body.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many North Korean and Chinese prisoners are now held by United Nations Forces in Korea; how many Chinese and North Koreans have refused repatriation; and how many have still to be screened.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The United Nations Command hold about 132,000 Communist prisoners of war in South Korea. About 20,000 are Chinese and the balance Koreans, some North Koreans and others South Koreans impressed into the North Korean forces.
As control is regained over the Communist-controlled compounds, screening is proceeding. I estimate that fewer than 40,000 still remain to be screened. I am not able to give up-to-date figures of those who have stated that they would forcibly resist being repatriated to North Korea; but at least 15,000 Chinese and 43,000 Koreans have so stated. No figures for civilian internees are included in the figures I have just given.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any information that the Chinese are less difficult prisoners than the North Koreans?

Mr. Lloyd: That was the information which I received.

Mr. A. Henderson: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer mean that no re-screening has yet taken place?

Mr. Lloyd: No re-screening has yet taken place.

Political Situation

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any satisfactory reply to the representations made to President Syngman Rhee in relation to the imposition of martial law and the arrest of members of the Korean Assembly.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: President Rhee replied on 11th June to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires' Note of 4th June, giving reasons for his recent action. On 15th June I had an interview with President Rhee. On 16th June the Minister of Defence and I saw President Rhee together. I shall give some account of those interviews and of the political situation in South Korea in my statement to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that since this Question was put down more arrests have been made by the President? As he is deliberately defying the United Nations, who are keeping him in power, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider reporting the matter to a special meeting of the Assembly with a view to the Assembly informing the President that if he does not act in a constitutional manner the United Nations will consider ceasing to defend his country?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter which I propose to raise in my statement tomorrow and perhaps the hon. Member would care to wait until then.

Koje Island (Inquiry Report)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to receive the report of the United Nations commission of inquiry into events on Koje Island; and if this report will be made available to hon. Members.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the White Paper which is to be presented to the House this evening. This Paper contains an account of events on Koje drawn in part from the report by the United Nations Commander.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the commission of inquiry have completed their work and that a report has been made to the United Nations Commander?

Mr. Lloyd: The United Nations Commander made his report and I think that

that report was presented to a Congressional body in the United States and has been published. In the White Paper there will be a section dealing with events in Koje which contains a rather abbreviated form of that report.

Mr. Swingler: Is not that the report by the United Nations Commander? Did he not also set up a commission of inquiry after the kidnapping of General Dodd and has that commission of inquiry reported, apart from the report given by the General Officer Commanding to the United States Congress?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that there was a commission of inquiry. I think it was treated by the United Nations as a military matter and an inquiry was made as a result of which the Commander made his report.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether, with the report he has published as a White Paper, there could be distributed in some form in the House or placed in the Libary the report of the inquiry made by the Red Cross into the handling of this matter some time ago and to which far less than adequate publicity was ever given in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member will be glad to hear that we have drawn attention to that report and have made reference to it in the White Paper.

Military Operations (Consultations)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seek an assurance from the United States Government that no military operations outside the borders of Korea will be undertaken by the United Nations Command without prior consultation with Her Majesty's Government and other members of the Security Council.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The United States Government are already aware of Her Majesty's Government's view that no operations beyond Korea should be undertaken without prior consultation with them. I cannot, of course, speak for other Governments contributing Forces in Korea.

Mr. Swingler: Has the Minister not seen a statement made by an American Minister last week to the effect that in


an emergency the United Nations Commander in Korea would take action to bomb territories outside Korea without consulting other members of the Security Council? Is he aware that many people in this country are thoroughly alarmed by the statement made by Mr. Lovett last week, and will he get into touch with the United States Government and inform them of the views of this country on this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: The attitude of Her Majesty's Government is that they certainly hope that this prior consultation will take place, and we have expressed that view. With regard to the contingency of urgent military necessity, our position is precisely the same as that of the Government who preceded us.

Power Stations (Attack)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the power station at Suiho, North Korea, had, to his knowledge, been attacked by United Nations Forces on any occasion prior to Monday, 23rd June, 1952; and on what date.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the two power stations at the Changwin reservoir and the two at Fusen, all in North Korea, supply power to any area outside Korea; and whether they have, to his knowledge, been attacked by United Nations Forces at any time since the armistice negotiations opened in the summer of 1951.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am informed that the bulk of the power produced by those stations is used in North Korea. A small proportion is thought to be transmitted to other areas.
The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us, if not now perhaps tomorrow, whether that answer would apply also to the numerous other stations which have been attacked since this Question was put down?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly see whether information can be given on the matter.

United Nations Aims

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the changed character of the war in Korea, he will consider making a statement of policy indicating clearly what are now the aims of the United Nations in Korea.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any change in the character of the conflict in Korea. As to the aims of the United Nations in Korea, he has nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate on Wednesday, 25th June.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has not become Prime Minister?

MIDDLE EAST (DEFINITION)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what geographical limits are indicated in Government communications by the expressions Near East and Middle East; and to what extent they differ in any way from those indicated by the same expressions 50 years ago.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 25th July, 1951, to the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Cocks: I do not know what the terms of that answer were, but is it true that such countries as Libya and Syria have now been transferred to the Middle East, and, if so, can the Minister say what is the justification for that?

Mr. Nutting: The answer which was given by my predecessor on 25th July included in the term "Middle East" the following countries: Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Persia, Syria, the Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Trucial Sheikhdoms, Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, Muscat, the Aden Protectorate and the Yemen.

Mr. Cocks: What countries now remain in the Near East?

Mr. Nutting: The term "Near East" is now outmoded.

Mr. Nicholson: Does the Government share the view that the East begins at Dover?

UNITED NATIONS STAFF (DISMISSALS)

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) on what grounds 15 members of the United Nations staff, New York, were recently dismissed; what were the charges made against them; what judicial inquiries were made, and by whom, into the charges; and what facilities were given to the persons concerned to answer charges brought against them;
(2) what are the grounds for the threatened dismissal of 30 or more members of the United Nations staff, New York; and if he will instruct our representatives at the United Nations to object to the dismissals until the charges are proved by an impartial judicial inquiry.

Mr. Nutting: I understand that certain employees of the United Nations Secretariat who have been serving on temporary engagement or have reached the retiring age of 60 have recently had their appointments terminated. The matter is, however, not one regarding which Her Majesty's Government have any title to intervene.

Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this Question? Does not this Question make it abundantly clear that the reference is to those who have been hounded out of office as undesirable—the usual kind of terminology that is used in the United States to ruin the reputation of good men? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am not satisfied that the Question has been answered at all?

Mr. Nutting: The hon. Member may not be satisfied because he will not accept my assurance that, according to my information, these employees have been dismissed either because they were serving in temporary engagements and the United Nations Secretariat wish to increase the proportion of permanent employees, or because they have reached the retiring age of 60.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's plea to look into it again, I should like to remind him of Article 100 of the Charter of the United Nations, of which I have no doubt he is a supporter. It says:
In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any Government. …

Mr. Davies: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the first opportunity.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. As the Under-Secretary of State has said that there is no responsibility on the part of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, may I ask why these Questions were permitted to be placed on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I think the Questions were allowed because the Minister was asked if he would instruct our representatives at the United Nations to object. I think that was proper, but the responsibility remains outside Her Majesty's Government and the rest of the Question is strictly not in order.

REFUGEES (U.K. FINANCIAL AID)

Mr. G. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what response has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the appeal by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for funds for the emergency relief of refugees.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Her Majesty's Government propose to contribute £100,000 to the High Commissioner's appeal for some three million dollars for emergency aid to the most needy groups of refugees within his mandate. The House will be asked to approve a Supplementary Estimate to provide this sum.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (PROPRIETARY FOODS)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, on what principle certain proprietary brands


of food are selected for reference by name on the menu of the Refreshment Department.

Mr. Steward (Chairman of the Kitchen Committee): No general principle is applied—but if the hon. Member is referring to a certain brand of vegetables which appeared on the menu under their trade name I am informed that the objective was to advise Members that the commodities were of the frozen type and not tinned.

Mr. Greenwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in future articles of that kind will be referred to as frozen and that publicity shall not be given to goods produced by a big monopoly like Unilever?

Mr. Steward: I will give consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion, but there are people in this House who like to know what they are being asked to eat.

Mr. Greenwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is enunciating a most dangerous principle?

Sir W. Darling: Will my hon. Friend take no such advice? Is he aware that it would be most improper to have a wine list which described wine as merely wine, beer as beer and whisky as whisky, and that we want to know the names of reliable branded goods whether they are for eating or drinking?

NON-MILLABLE WHEAT (GIFTS)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will make regulations to enable farmers to give away non-millable wheat to old-age pensioners formerly in their employ.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): No, Sir. We need this wheat for the feeding-stuffs ration pool.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that a farmer I know gave a small bag of millable wheat to an old-age pensioner who had been in his employ, and that he is liable to severe penalties? Cannot something be done to stop these ridiculous small controls? Free the lot.

Dr. Hill: While such controls remain they must needs be enforced.

BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (INQUIRY REPORT)

3.31 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
I have today presented to Parliament the Report of the Committee, under Mr. Scott Henderson, which was set up after the escape of Straffen from Broadmoor on 29th April last, and which was charged to inquire into the adequacy of the security arrangements at the Institution. The Committee make a number of detailed recommendations whereby they think that the existing arrangements could be improved.
With regard to the recommendations about pay and conditions of the nursing staff at Broadmoor, it will be appreciated that these are matters which should be dealt with through the appropriate Whitley machinery and cannot be considered in isolation from the position of other public servants. But the Government will arrange for a review of the basis of their remuneration in the light of the views expressed by the Committee. Subject only to this, I wish to say at once that, while some of these recommendations will involve further consultation with other authorities and bodies concerned, the Government do not hesitate to accept all the recommendations in principle and will proceed without delay towards their implementation. They are grateful to the Committee for the speed and the thoroughness with which they have carried out their task.
In view of the many rumours and speculations which have been provoked by the circumstances of this particular escape, the House will, I am sure, be on the whole reassured both by the general tenor of the Committee's Report and by the Government's clear intention to accept all their detailed recommendations.
The House will note that the Committee found that there had been no relaxation of security rules since the management of Broadmoor passed to the Board of Control in 1949.

Mr. Marquand: May I say that on this side of the House that we would wish to associate ourselves with the expressions of gratitude which the right hon. Gentleman has made to this Committee for the


speed and thoroughness with which they have discharged their tasks? May I say, also, that we are glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman feels that public opinion will be, on the whole, reassured?

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. Are we debating anything, Sir? Here is a Report presented to us. A statement is made by the Minister, which is unnecessary, and now the right hon. Gentleman is making a speech about it.

Mr. Speaker: This is a statement made by a Minister, and it is customary on these occasions, and in accordance with practice, for some supplementary questions to be put or observations to be made, but they should be limited, of course.

Mr. Marquand: I will certainly endeavour to make my remarks interrogatory, but I did think there would be no objection to associating my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with an expression of gratitude to a committee for a report of this kind. I have certainly heard it done before. It is a little difficult to ask the right hon. Gentleman specific questions about the Report, because he has said so little about the recommendations. May I ask him whether he could assure the House that he is now satisfied that the recommendations made will go far towards preventing regrettable occurrences of this kind in future?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, I am so satisfied. I have been to Broadmoor myself, within the last few days, and from what I have seen I am able to confirm what the Committee has stated. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that no place, be it prison or institution, can ever be absolutely guaranteed to be in all

circumstances escape-proof, but I think that everything has been and is being done to ensure that security is maintained at Broadmoor.

Mr. Remnant: Does the Report include any recommendations on a system of warning the public in the unfortunate event of a further escape taking place? Further, apart from the Report, does my right hon. Friend still consider that that institution and those like it are properly under the Ministry of Health, or should they be under the Home Office?

Mr. Macleod: On the first point, if my hon. Friend will study the Report, copies of which are in the Vote Office, he will see that matters concerning notification by siren, the use of the B.B.C. and co-operation with the police are fully covered and have been accepted. On the second point, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that control should remain with the Ministry of Health.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that at the moment the right hon. Gentleman has another Report before him of a disciplinary character, consideration of which he said must be deferred until he had the Report which he has just announced? Is he in a position to make a statement about this other disciplinary Report on the action he is going to take?

Mr. Macleod: I am sure it would be improper for me to indicate what disciplinary action I propose to take. I undertook to the House that I would not examine the case until I had the Report of the Scott Henderson Committee. I have not examined the case, but I shall now proceed to do so.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

Motion made and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £60, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with the Cost of Living, with particular reference to Food, for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:

Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class IX, Vote 7, Ministry of Food
10


Class IX, Vote 18, Ministry of Food (Strategic Reserves)
10


Class VI, Vote 9, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services)
10


Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
10


Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade
10


Class V, Vote 7, Ministry of Labour and National Service
10


Total
£60

Orders of the Day — COST OF LIVING

3.36 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: In the years between the two wars, and indeed long before then, the cost of living in relation to wage rates was regarded by the Labour Party as an issue of the highest importance. In those days, food and other essential household requirements were relatively cheap, but, as compared with the general level of wages, prices were far too high. It is doubtful whether prices will ever again fall to the level of the pre-war years. This is due to the presence of several new factors.
There has been a remarkable increase in world population; living standards have improved, though they are still far from satisfactory, while production of some commodities has failed to keep pace with consumer demand. So it is unlikely that the days of cheap food, clothing and the rest will ever return. Besides, primary producers are entitled to a fair deal. They have been exploited long enough. Nevertheless, we cannot meekly accept the new situation, but must always keep before us the need for raising the standard of living,

in particular for those in the lower income groups.
It is because of these considerations that the Labour Opposition has raised this debate. Our immediate purpose is to extract from the Government some idea of what is their solution of the problem of living costs. I make no apology for asking questions on the cost of living and the rise in food prices. Moreover, we must direct attention to the inconsistency between the statements made by Tory candidates during the General Election and their apologetic declarations ever since.
By extravagant promises made by members and supporters of the Government, the Tory Party managed to get themselves returned to power—at any rate for a short time. But the facts are now beginning to dawn upon the public. We are justified in recalling the exaggerated propaganda conducted by the Tories; the thousands of scurrilous posters, the mass hypnosis and the hysteria—all part of the election stock-in-trade of the Tory Party—together with the flambuoyant broadcasts of Lord Woolton and, last but certainly not least, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.
The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) worked himself up into a state of almost homicidal excitement during the General Election. Now that he occupies a position of more responsibility and less freedom he is cultivating almost a bedside manner—indeed, almost a graveside manner. He appears to have taken a sedative for which, no doubt, he has paid the customary shilling prescription fee. Instead of the bombastic utterances, the arrogance and the raucous criticism, he seems to be almost deflated. This is a most welcome metamorphosis.
Many Tory back benchers indulged in the most vile misrepresentation of the food policy of the Labour Government. It would be interesting to learn what some of their constituents are saying about the promises they made at the Election in their desperate efforts to drive the Labour Party out of office. To quote from their election utterances would be superfluous; the record of the present Government in the last few months speaks for itself. This is the concern of millions of people, many of whom voted for the Conservative candidates at the election


and helped to return the present Government.
I must avail myself of this opportunity to invite the attention of hon. Members to an amazing statement which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, as reported yesterday in one newspaper. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
One of the results of having a Socialist Government for six years is that people are now eating horseflesh. That is a very good example of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Members of the Tory Party have frequently sunk low in their political utterances, but I venture to say that this is the limit, though I am reminded—and I agree—that one never can tell.
I should like to put the most important question first. Will Ministers explain why prominent members of the Government made promises at the Election about the Tory Party's intention to reduce the cost of living? Do the Government believe that those promises have been fulfilled? If so, will they indicate what has been achieved in the reduction of living costs? If not, can they explain the reason for their failure?
Secondly, I should like to put a question of importance in relation to our balance of payments position. Have the Government considered the effect of a rise in the cost of food on the policy of wage restraint? Moreover, should industrial disputes occur as a result of the workers' demands being rejected, what would be the cost to the nation? Furthermore, should concessions be made to the workers' demands, would the cost be more than the Chancellor will gain by cutting imports and reducing the food subsidies? Furthermore, will Ministers be good enough to tell us what will be the effect of this policy on our export trade?
I must tell the Ministers who are responsible—some of whom are present, some of whom are unable to be with us because of other engagements, and others, perhaps more culpable than the rest, who are in another place and therefore shielded from attack in this Committee, for which they must feel grateful—that evasion will not do. These questions must be answered, we hope to the satisfaction of the Committee, and not by casting the blame on the world situation or on the late Government, or by any other form of passing the buck.
If the Ministers who are to respond feel that the questions are too difficult to answer, they have time to acquaint their superiors in the Cabinet so that we may have a considered reply before the debate comes to an end; but we must make it clear to all concerned that should the Government fail to satisfy the Committee the matter will not rest there, because the electors will still remain dissatisfied, discontent will grow and thus bring about results which will weaken the nation and eventually overwhelm the Government. We shall, of course, bear the latter event with the utmost relief.
When the Labour Government were returned in 1945, the shortage of food and other supplies was acute. That was inevitable, because the production of foodstuffs was retarded by the war. In consequence world prices increased sharply, even in food-producing countries, and this country, where, unfortunately, we produce far too little food to sustain our large population, was amongst the worst affected. But few, if any, countries escaped. We had therefore to increase the amount spent on subsidies by many millions of pounds. This was done for two reasons. One was to provide an umbrella to shield the people from the harsh effects of high prices, and the other was to restrain excessive wage demands. Our export trade would have suffered if we had failed to do this.
When the Labour Government took office in 1945, food subsidies were £265 million a year. By 1948–49 they had been increased to £485 million. In 1949–50 they were £465 million, and from 1950 to 1952 they were fixed at £410 million. Now they have been cut to £250 million, that is to say, less than the level at the end of the war, although the whole level of prices has increased. Moreover, we always left ourselves free to adjust the figure upwards if it were considered necessary.
The Tory Opposition always denied that world prices had anything to do with the level of prices at home, and they blamed it all on the Labour Government. Of course, facts were against them, but the Tories never trouble themselves about facts when prejudice can serve them better. Now, when the Tory Party are in power and food prices at home are rising, they seek to put all the blame on world prices and accept no


responsibility themselves. During Labours' term of office the Tory Opposition persistently assailed the Labour Government with the most fantastic charges and completely ignored the trend of world prices. Now world prices, apart from food, are no longer rising. On the contrary, the latest figures disclose that wholesale commodity prices have declined by an average of 25 per cent.
Let us look at the food price position. There is hardly a single food which has not been affected by price increases since this Government came into office. This applies both to rationed and to unrationed goods. According to the Parliamentary Secretary's own statement, as can be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June,
In the six months to the middle of May, 27 items, apart from seasonal increases in the price of some fresh fruits and vegetables … rose from 4 per cent. to 33 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPOR r, 11th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 207.]
I believe that is a very modest statement; indeed, I regard it as an understatement of the position.
It may be useful to recite some of the facts about the rise in food prices since the present Government were returned. This can be done without cluttering up the case with any reference to the Retail Price Index which, as we know, was changed in January of this year. The fewer complications there are, the better. Besides, housewives are not interested in the price index but in what the prices are in the shops.
I have in my possession several documents, including a report of the broadcast of the hon. Member for Luton called "Not in front of the children." As if he had anything to hide! I have other documents relating to the remarkable declarations of Lord Woolton. Here is a list of almost 100 items of food and other household necessities, all of which have advanced in price.

Mr. William Hamilton: Read them out.

Mr. Shinwell: I would oblige my hon. Friend, but I do not want to harrow the souls of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Food is the principal requirement in the household, but no housewife could run a house on food alone. All kinds of articles are essential, like soap

and cleaning materials and condiments; and there are many others in daily use.
Worst of all, the price of bread has been raised, and this, for most families in the low income groups, is one of the largest items. The increased cost, along with the rise in flour prices, for the average family of four or five persons means a substantial increase in expenditure every week. What must it be for large families? We know that children consume large quantities of bread. Moreover, it is estimated—and this is an indication of the gravity of the position about bread—that the sum saved by the reduction in the amount expended on the bread subsidy will be £45 million. That is a very serious situation indeed.
Milk is another costly item in the family budget, particularly where there are many children. Meat prices have risen by 4d. to 6d. a 1b., so that thousands of housewives can no longer afford to buy it and, in consequence, most of it is going to those families who can afford to pay because their incomes are higher. The best quality of meat is quite beyond the reach of working-class families. All the same, I will make the Government this concession: I have read that the golf ball manufacturers' association have decided to reduce the price of golf balls by 6d. That is the way to bring down the cost of living. I hope the Government will not claim any credit for it.
Not only are food and other prices rising, but earnings have sharply declined. If we take the old index figure of retail prices, we find that they have risen in excess of earnings. On the average, the wage earners are worse off under a Tory Government than they were while Labour was in power. Moreover, we have to consider the effect of rising unemployment. This is reflected in lower consuming power, leading to fewer purchases. It is the unemployed who suffer more harshly because, as a result of their reduced income, they have less to spend, while, on the other hand, prices are rising sharply against them. The old-aged and other pensioners, who have to make do on a modest allowance, also suffer.
Let us examine the policy of the Government in relation to the question of wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking the trade unions to restrain their members from asking for increased wages. I must say that this


comes strangely from a party which all along has demanded that we should set the people free and which is opposed to restrictions and controls of any sort. Restraint is surely not a Tory virtue. While the Government believe in free enterprise, the workers must be restrained from demanding wage rates which will enable them to live reasonably well; but, at the same time, be it noted, industrial undertakings, in spite of taxation and voluntary limitation of dividends, manage to do exceedingly well by their share-holders.
It is the trade union leaders who have shown the utmost concern over the country's position, who have all along adopted a conciliatory attitude and who are anxious to prevent inflation. What help have the trade unions received from the Government? When the Tories were returned to power, the trade union leaders offered to help in combating the dangers which threatened the country. They also asked, very modestly, that before the Government pursued an economic policy which must worsen the living conditions of their members, consultations should take place. In particular, they directed attention to the danger of removing the food subsidies because of the effect upon the cost of living. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was warned, but he ignored the advice of the trade union leaders.
While negotiations are proceeding on the wages question, it would be quite improper to make any comment on the merits, but there are two observations which I must make. The first is that if only 50 per cent., or even 25 per cent., of the workers' demands be accepted, it will more than wipe away the whole of the alleged advantages which the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes he gained by the imports cuts and the reduction in the food subsidies. Nothing could be more futile, therefore, than such a policy. Secondly, most wage rates are still much too low—that is, if the standards of living are to reach the levels which we on the Labour side believe to be essential.
I frankly confess that I am completely baffled as to how the mass of wage earners, receiving less than £8 weekly, manage to live, what with high rents, transport costs, food, clothing and the like. And what about the plight of old-age pensioners, the war disabled and

others receiving National Insurance benefit? Strangely enough, this is at a time when the John Lewis Partnership, for some unaccountable reason, have decided to reduce the wages and salaries of their thousands of employees. What possible advantage can the adoption of such a policy be to the consumers in general?
Of course, the price of some textile goods is falling. So are the prices of some other domestic articles. But why? It is not because there is any virtue in the Government's policy, but because consumer demand has fallen off in almost every country. We know that the prices of some goods in the shops are much reduced. We can see that for ourselves. But that brings no benefit to those who are employed in industries like textiles, boots and shoes, or furniture; nor does it help the consumers of foodstuffs.
In the normal course one would have expected that as prices other than for food fell, the demand would have increased; but in fact that is far from being so. And why? It is because in the vast number of homes, particularly where wages are still on a low level, the people are compelled to spend so much on food out of their incomes that very little is being left to enable them to buy the other goods which they need. As a result, they go short of what in normal circumstances they would like to buy. We are not, as some would have us believe, suffering from over-production, but from under-consumption. That is the trouble.
Whether the Government like it or not, I accuse them of deliberately provoking unemployment. In the last few months bank credits have been restricted by over £52 million. The result is that many manufacturers, particularly those in a modest way of business, are quite incapable of carrying on. In due course there' will be many bankruptcies arising from the Government's policy. Who can doubt that a slump is certain to come if this policy is continued? When we take into consideration idle factories with idle machines requiring maintenance, and also the cost of overheads, the loss sustained may be greater than the loss that might have accrued if bank credits had been extended. It would have been wiser to have enabled production to continue even if it only meant stockpiling in readiness for the end of this recession.
But the most remarkable commentary on the Government's policy is the recent statement by an official of the Pawnbrokers' Association that for six years very little business was done in their profession but that now things are beginning to pick up, and they are looking forward to brighter times. These are the benefits this Tory Party, this Tory Government, have offered to the people of this country. That is what the policy of the Government has brought us to. This is the tragic result of relying on people like Lord Woolton and the back-room boys of the Tory Central Office for advice on national domestic affairs.
If the Tory Government, instead of seeking to turn back the hands of the clock and revenging themselves on the Labour Government, had at the very least retained the food subsidies, they would have provided, despite the harsh bleatings of many of their big business and financial supporters—or should I say masters?—some cover against world economic trends. No, Sir, the umbrella was thrown away, and now the storm has broken, flooding the lives of millions with insecurity, making conditions for our housewives intolerable, and destroying the policy of wage restraint. Eventually it will cause this Government to be overthrown, and, fortunately, the Tory Party will be deprived of any share in our national affairs.
So the cumulative effect of the Government's policy in reducing food subsidies and in cutting imports will be to throw greater burdens on the majority of the population whose incomes are on the lower scale; on the other hand, it has given those with money to spend the opportunity of getting more than a fair share of foodstuffs, not so much because they need them but because they can afford to buy them. It has also created a feeling of insecurity among the people, who, seeing the rise in unemployment, are reluctant to spend any of their modest savings on textile and other goods, and this in turn creates more unemployment.
It is a policy which has embarrassed the trade union leaders, who wish to avoid the evils of inflation but who, in face of rapid price increases, are compelled to demand higher wage rates for their members. It is a policy which may lead to industrial disputes, the results of

which may prove more costly than the food subsidies; and it could hamper our prospects of improving the export trade, owing to higher wage costs.
Over and above all this, the Government appear to be quite incapable of grappling with the situation, of finding a solution, and content themselves with vague assurances about the future. Meanwhile, the electors who helped to return the Government are rapidly becoming disillusioned, and their demands for alleviation, which cannot be satisfied by the Government, are fast leading to demands for the ejection of those failures who promised so much but whose performance has fallen far short of what was expected.
But what is even more important than this failure of the Government's policy is the need for the adoption of constructive measures to ensure increased food supplies and a reduction in price. First of all, the most vigorous steps are necessary to raise the production of food at home. Much has already been done; but while I give full credit to the farming community for their achievements in the past few years, greater efforts are required. In the coming years the food problem will be the most urgent of all. What should be produced and how to produce it is a matter for the experts. I am not competent to judge.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Agreed.

Mr. Shinwell: Obviously, there are not many competent people on the other side—

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Rubbish.

Mr. Shinwell: —because so far they have failed to remedy the position. They have the opportunity. We must shake off much more of our dependence upon foreign food supplies, otherwise our position will become intolerable.

Mr. Julian Amery: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that in the last year while his party were in office the total share of the capital investment programme devoted to agriculture was under 5 per cent. of the total?

Mr. Shinwell: What I do say is this. In the last six years of the Labour Government more was done for the farming


community than was ever done in the history of the Tory Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That statement is unchallengeable. The facts are inescapable. I invite the hon. Gentleman to subject the figures and the facts to objective analysis, and he will discover that what I have said is true. Therefore, his question is quite irrelevant to the issues before us.
Furthermore, the Government, in association with local authorities, should help to form food producers' groups in every town and village, using allotments and waste land to the utmost advantage. I am bound to say that I do not pretend to have any knowledge of agriculture.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly I am not so knowledgeable as hon. Members opposite think they are, but nevertheless I am appalled at the amount of waste land in this country. If we made an effort to cultivate our soil—I am not complaining of the farming community—as they do on the Continent, in Belgium, Denmark, France and Holland, using almost every inch of land, I think we could produce far more than we are now producing.

Mr. Baldwin: We told the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends that for six years.

Mr. Shinwell: The country must be made to understand the urgency of raising our food supplies to the highest possible level. Meanwhile, the Government should consider their food subsidy policy and admit its futility. They must recognise that a fundamental error was made by reducing the food subsidies at this time. Essential food imports should not be cut, even if it means restricting the imports of some other articles like foreign wines, films and the like.
The Government have now got the power and the opportunity partly to redeem their failure and to avoid the industrial blizzard which may descend upon us unless prompt action is taken. I advise the Government to forget all about their prestige and to consider the consequences of their policy upon the lives of our people. If they are unwilling to do so, then the sooner they clear out the better it will be for the country, for already in a few months of office they have, by a succession of futile actions, outstayed their welcome.

4.11 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I am in some ways grateful to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) because he has not given me a great deal to answer. He asked one or two questions, which I hope to deal with in the course of my speech. For instance, he asked why we have failed to reduce the cost of living, what is our solution to the present problem, the effect of our policy on wage restraint, and lastly, the effect of our policy on exports.
I was interested in that last question coming from him, because I have a very clear recollection of his views about exports not so many years ago, when I heard him say that never had there been such a fallacy. He also referred to extravagant promises that had been made. I do not think it comes very well from the Opposition to talk about extravagant promises. I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to look back over some of their remarks about food only in the last few years and to examine the position when they left office. I think the less they say about promises the better for all of us.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was not really right for us to try to put the blame on the preceding Government. In other words, he said, "Do not try to pass the buck." As the party opposite were inclined to try to put the blame on us last November, within about a week of our taking office, I think it is perfectly fair to point out what the position has been and what has led up to the position in which we find ourselves.
Therefore, I shall not respond to the appeal not to pass the buck. I propose to pass it as much as I possibly can, passing it forward across the Table and not sidewise. I hope in the course of my remarks to be able to deal with many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman raised about home food production and the importance of food. The desire to regard that as an important item in our national life is not, may I say, held only by the Labour Party.
The Government welcome this debate because it provides an opportunity for us to do two things. Firstly, by reminding the Committee how the late Government failed to deal with this very problem that has been raised today it enables us to expose the claim of the Opposition to be the only party to be concerned with


the cost of living. Secondly, we welcome the opportunity to show their responsibility for the general economic difficulties which face this country, of which the cost of living is one aspect.
There is no desire on this side of the Committee to under-estimate the effects of any increase in the cost of living, however small, on all our constituents. We must seek out the reason for these increases. We must look at the facts. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the general question of the cost of living, but as this debate has particular reference to food—and as, indeed, the prices of goods other than foods are beginning to look considerably more healthy—I propose to devote my arguments mainly to the particular subject of food.
There are, as I see it, three important questions with which I must deal.
Firstly, what has happened to the cost of living, particularly food, since the present Administration took office? In dealing with this, I am bound to make some comparisons with the sorry record of the last Administration.
Secondly, what are the reasons for these changes in food prices?
And, finally, what have food subsidies to do with it?
The right hon. Gentleman focused attention in his remarks on increases in prices. Although he talked about the effect on wages, he did not dwell overmuch on the extent to which wage rates and earnings have kept pace with the prices. Nor did he say overmuch about the decision which the Government have taken to increase a wide range of social benefits and to reduce Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman referred to many people but he made no reference whatsoever to something which the Government did, which was to try to synchronise the increases in prices with the effects they would have. That is something the party opposite did not do, but these factors must be taken into account, as the party opposite have often said.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that steps had been taken to offset the increases by giving Income Tax relief, changing National Assistance rates, and so on. How has he helped those who pay no Income Tax?

Major Lloyd George: I shall not go into that now. I am comparing what we have done with what the late Administration did. We at any rate have attempted to help people on a very large scale. While nobody pretends that everybody will be affected, the fact remains that it is far beyond anything ever attempted by the party opposite. I apologise to the Committee for giving one or two figures but they are essential.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given any.

Major Lloyd George: That is not a very funny remark.
I apologise for giving figures, but I hope they will be of some help to the Committee. In October, 1950, when the prices began to rise seriously, the Retail Price Index was 115. The index of weekly wage rates was 111. In October, 1951—that is, a year later—the retail price index was 129 and wage rate index 122. In other words, by the time the last Government left office, wage rates had lagged behind prices by an extra three points. In May this year the retail price index was 135 and the wage rate index 129; so in our period of office this gap has been closing.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the relevant figures to take are the November figures. After all, the increase in the wage levels in October would be shown in November.

Major Lloyd George: I am taking October to October, because that is when we came in, or when the party opposite went out, which is the same thing.
Wage rates are only one criterion. It may be asked: What about earnings? The index of earnings was 124 in October, 1950, and rose to 136 in October, 1951, and the forecast of the Central Statistical Office is that the earnings figure for May is 144. On this basis, we can say that since October, 1950, retail prices have risen by 17 per cent. weekly wage rates have risen by 16 per cent., and weekly earnings are estimated also to have risen by 16 per cent. These official economic statistics show how unfounded are some of the charges about increases in the cost of living, and how important it is for all concerned to weigh


judiciously claims for wage increases at this moment. I think it would be well if we all kept these figures before us throughout this debate.
In October, 1951, when this Government took office, the Interim Index of Retail Prices—all items—was 129. That includes, of course, the food item, which was then 143, but for all items it was 129. The Committee will recall that the interim index was introduced in June, 1947, because of complaints about the unrepresentative nature of the original index. From June, 1947, when the index was introduced, to October, 1951, the index had risen by 29 points, that is, from 100 to 129 from 1947 to 1951. It rose four points in the first six months, five points in 1948, four points in 1949, three points in 1950 and then 13 points in the first 10 months of 1951. This shows a gradual but steady increase in the years when the Opposition were in office, culminating in a steep and spectacular rise in the last 10 months of their administration.
I was very surprised to see a report of a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—I think it was at Bristol—earlier this month, when he said that,
We kept the cost of living steady by food subsidies.
There has been a steady rise since 1947, and in the last 10 months of last year we had one of the most spectacular rises we have ever had. The right hon. Gentleman said that we wanted to try to put the blame on him. It is true that the Labour Government sent the index rocketing upwards, and the right hon. Gentleman now has the impudence to say that we must not blame them for anything that happened in the last six years.
One point which hon. Members should notice is the comparison between the rate of increases in 1951 and in 1952. In 1951, it climbed each month from 117 in January to 124 in May. It climbed steadily each month. This year—mark the difference—it stood at 132 in January, it was 133 in February and it remained unchanged in March. It then went to 135 in April and has remained at that level in May.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Every week the women are paying more.

Major Lloyd George: At least there are signs that our promises are being fulfilled. The index to which I have referred was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mrs. Braddock: The women are not interested in index increases; they are interested in prices.

Major Lloyd George: In any case, it was done by the great brains opposite and not by us and was accepted at that time. This year, to date, the rise in the all-items index has only been three points as compared with seven points in the same period last year.
Now let us examine how the food price index moved. During the second half of 1947 it rose by three points; by the end of 1948 it rose by a further five ponts; then in 1949 it jumped by 12 points to reach 120. It was checked during 1950 and increased by only five points to 125; but in the first 10 months of 1951 it rose by 18 points to 143. That is the cost of food index. That was an even steeper and more spectacular rise.

Mr. Shinwell: Where did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman get the figures from?

Major Lloyd George: Does the right hon. Gentleman challenge them?

Mr. Shinwell: I do challenge them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is throwing figures about quite a lot. I deny the accuracy of his statement completely. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course, I do. I would not have said it if I had not meant it. I will say it again with emphasis. Let me produce a statement and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can deny it if he likes. From May to November, 1951, the index of weekly wage rates for all workers rose from 118 to 126, or by eight points. In the same period, food prices rose by eight points. Therefore, the wage increases kept pace with the rise in food prices. That is a complete repudiation of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. That is the cost of living index as a whole taken from Government statistics. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prefers statistics prepared by the Tory Government.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir Charles, for the right hon. Gentleman to address the House a second time?

The Chairman: The House is in Committee.

Mr. Shinwell: I have been in the House a little longer than the hon. Gentleman and know more about procedure than he does. No doubt, in due course, he will learn to conduct himself properly.

Mrs. Braddock: The hon. Member will not be here long enough.

Mr. Shinwell: The rise in the cost of living index for all items during that period was only five points between May and November, 1951. That is the period of which we are speaking.

Major Lloyd George: I have given my figures, and I am not going to withdraw one of them. They are the only official figures that can be found in this country. I have the whole list before me. The period which I took was quite a different one from that taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I gave the figures and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to prove what he has said—in other words, that my figures are inaccurate. All I can say is that these are the figures supplied by the only body responsible officially for the figures in this country. These are the figures that have been accepted, and I repeat that the figures I have given are the accurate ones. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that. I have no doubt he will give all the figures in the world, but we want the accurate ones, and I have just given them.
Now, if I may proceed, whatever the figures, no one will deny that there was a sudden and very sharp rise in food prices in the last 10 months of the last Government. Hon. Members opposite will have to be patient and will have to listen to me. I remember the campaign which my predecessor waged about the fear he had of the increased cost of living when he was chairman of the Labour Party in 1949. He wrote an article about it. He said,
The next Labour Government will have to approach the problem along a whole series of roads.
He was one of those who chose the road that they had to follow. What happened? In February, 1950, when my predecessor

took office, the index of retail food prices stood at 121. When he left the Ministry of Food in October, 1951, the index was 143—a rise of 22 points. That is what happened to my predecessor, and only once since 1919 has there been any increase in food prices to compare with the increase during that period.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give way?

Major Lloyd George: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind. I am getting a bit tired of this.

Mr. Shinwell: So am I.

Major Lloyd George: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman popping up like a jack-in-the-box and saying, "I deny those figures." The fact of the matter is that in February, 1950—

Mr. James Callaghan: Is that from "The Right Road for Britain"?

Major Lloyd George: I am not reading from "The Right Road for Britain." That remark is not even funny. I am reading the official figures. In February, 1950—I am giving a figure which I hope will be accepted—the retail food index was 121, which is the figure given here. I said that in October, 1951, the figure was 143, which is the figure checked on the official returns. These figures are the only official figures and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman any time he likes to prove that they are wrong. He has given me his figures; I have given him mine, and mine are the correct ones.

Mr. Callaghan: When is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going to bring down food prices?

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make my speech in my own way and not make such fatuous observations.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Major Lloyd George: I cannot give way.

Mr. Callaghan: Might I, then, rise to a point of order, Sir Charles? I wish to ask whether, as a singularly offensive personal remark was made by the Minister, it would be in accordance with tradition and custom for him to give way?

The Chairman: I did not hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make any offensive remark.

Mr. Callaghan: Might I direct your attention, Sir Charles, to the remark of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to which I take exception. He said that my interventions were of a fatuous nature when he was asked when he intended to bring down the cost of living. Why is it supposed to be fatuous to ask him when he proposes to bring down the cost of food when he based the whole of his electoral campaign on that?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Major Lloyd George: If I said anything offensive, I withdraw it, but I see nothing offensive in the word "fatuous," because the hon. Gentleman was fatuous. It was fatuous because at that moment I was not discussing that subject. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not listen to the debate or he would not have made the observation that he did. I was talking to the right hon. Gentleman who was challenging my figures. I repeat that I am not altering a single figure that I have given and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman any time he likes to prove that they are wrong.
I was asked questions about what has happened since October. The revised index of retail prices of food began at 100 in January and reached 104.4 at the end of May. Before the new index was arrived at, the old index had risen from 143 in October when we took office to almost 150 in January. The new index was introduced in January and went up about 4½ points by May.
The Committee will have noticed that both under the last Government and under the present one the index of food prices went up more sharply than the general price index. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, the raw material costs play a greater part in retail food prices than in those of manufactured articles, and this was a time of rising import costs. Secondly—and probably more important—the Labour Government realised—rather late, but better late than never—that they must limit the amount of money that was being transferred from one pocket of the taxpayer to another in food subsidies.
One of the first problems that came to our notice on assuming office was that immediate increases in some food prices were required to keep food subsidies within the limit of £410 million laid down by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Immediate retail price increases were necessary to save £20 million before the end of March. The outgoing Government, of course, must have been aware over the last months of their period of office that some increases had to be made during the year 1951–52 if subsidies were to be kept within the limit laid down in their own Budget of 1950. It would have been kinder on the housewife if they had made the increase earlier rather than later, because £20 million saved over six or eight months obviously means a less sudden increase than an attempt to save the same sum spread over four months.
The price increases which we had to make at the end of 1951 are the consequences of Socialist failure to take unpleasant decisions before the General Election, which they knew was coming. Not unnaturally, they did not want to lose popularity. We had to recover the £20 million which they had left alone. So we had to make increases in December, 1951, in the prices of bacon and cheese of 10d. 1b. in each case and of milk of ½d. per pint. These three increases caused a rise of 4.9 points in the retail food index. That is almost entirely the responsibility of the other side.
Because they shirked their duty for political reasons, we had to do the work, and I am just saying, in passing, that the responsibility is theirs and not ours. The only other increases in controlled prices in this period were, firstly, a modest increase of ½d. per 1b. in the price of pre-packed flour and semolina—this was necessary because a survey made by the Ministry's own Costings Division showed that the existing prices were inadequate—and, secondly, an increase in the price of sugar confectionery.
Between January and May the index of food prices increased by a little over 4 per cent. This compares very favourably with the increase of 6 per cent. in the corresponding period last year. Of this year's increase, a rise of about two points follows from the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman referred to increase the price of bread and flour. I must observe here that, even if we had


kept the food subsidies at £410 million, this increase would still have been necessary to cover the estimated net increased cost of home-produced foods which we foresaw for 1952–53. The increases in the price of flour and bread were designed to save us that £50 million.
While we must all regret the movement of world prices which has made increases necessary, it is not for the Opposition to challenge those increases unless they are prepared to say here and now that, notwithstanding the country's economic plight, they would have increased the food subsidies by £50 million rather than pass on any of this year's increased costs to the consumer. If they would have been ready to do this, let us have it said from the Opposition Front Bench that they would have gone back on their previous decision not to increase the food subsidies above what they were.
The remaining changes in retail food prices up to the end of May amounted to a net increase of two and a half points. A substantial share of this increase comes from the seasonal rise in the price of apples, potatoes and other fruit and vegetables, partly counter-balanced by a fall in the price of fish. These normal seasonal changes account for a rise of roughly two points. The balance comes from a few minor items. I have already referred to the increase in the price of pre-packed flour and sugar confectionery. In addition, the following controlled prices were increased between October and the end of May: sweet biscuits, meat products, and coffee.
The reason for the increase is the same in each case—increased costs of procurement, processing or distribution. I wish to impress upon the Committee that food manufacturers and distributors cannot be isolated from the effects of rising costs, whether they be wages, coal, transport or raw materials; and, indeed, hon. Members opposite who are closely associated with the Co-operative movement, which is responsible for distributing food to about 13 million people, know this to be true.
Since the end of the war the world's capacity to use raw materials and to consume food has developed faster than its capacity to expand raw materials and food supplies. While prices will come down from the abnormal levels which followed Korea, it would be quite wrong

to envisage a speedy return to the sort of price levels which we had before the last war. Prices overseas have gone up, and the terms of trade have moved against the United Kingdom, so that more and more exports are needed to pay for our imports. This adverse movement in the general terms of trade has, I am glad to say, been checked since the beginning of this year; but the extent to which our food prices overseas have increased will, I think, surprise many hon. Members.
Before the war the average price we paid for Argentine meat was £38 10s. per ton. The average price for the same meat in the first half of this year was £139 per ton. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the private buyers?"] May I finish my speech, and then the hon. Member will have an opportunity to make one? Before the war the average price which we paid for Nigerian groundnuts—if I might refer to that commodity here—was £13 per ton; now it is £84 per ton. Sugar before the war cost £10 per ton. We are now paying £46 per ton. Our total food imports in 1938—the last four years before the war—cost £387 million for 22.5 million tons of food and feedingstuffs. Last year we paid £1,379 million for the 18 million tons which we required to import. That works out at roughly £17 per ton before the war and £76 per ton since the war.
The prices of home-produced foodstuffs have also gone up. Both sides of the House have recognised that all who worked on the land—farmers and farm workers—should be justly rewarded for their efforts. The average price paid for wheat to the British fanner in 1936–38 was 9s. 8d. per cwt; it is now 30s. 4d. Milk has gone up from 1s. per gallon to 2s. 10d. per gallon. The price of pigs per score averaged 12s. 4d. before the war, it is now 53s. 6d.
Both home-produced and overseas food prices have gone up, and since the price of so much of the food which we buy today was fixed by the Opposition when they were in power, they know the reasons for the increases. They know that it is a problem which concerns all countries. The United Kingdom, however, is the biggest food-importing country in the world. We depend for 60 per cent. of our supplies on imports. We cannot escape the consequences of these price movements.
One of our complaints about the subsidy policy of the Opposition is that it tried to obscure these changes. It was a right and sensible policy to adopt in the war, but once the pattern of the international post-war price relationship was clear, it was folly to try to isolate this country from all the movements which had taken place in our supplying countries. For years the Socialists seemed to pretend that by their domestic policy they could try to reverse the trend of price movements outside. They went to fantastic lengths in juggling with the money in the taxpayer's pocket to try to show that they could do it. But it could not go on for long.
The late Sir Stafford Cripps faced up to it with characteristic courage. In 1948–49 food subsidies reached £485 million, and he estimated that unless a limit were placed on them they would be £568 million in 1949–50. He said, in his Budget speech in 1949:
Now that … cannot go on. We must call a halt, or we shall find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having to refuse to import much needed food because we cannot afford to pay the subsidy out of our Budget."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2085.]
The significance of this decision to pass on the additional costs to the consumer was confirmed by the 1950 Budget, when the ceiling was fixed at £410 million and maintained at that level in 1951. So events drove the Government to admit defeat in the attempt to isolate this country from world price movements. They took the decision to pass on all price increases to the consumer.
But once the principle of putting a limit on the subsidies has been accepted there is nothing sacrosanct in any particular figure. All that food subsidies do is to give the taxpayers of this country—both direct and indirect—the unpleasant task of paying so many millions of pounds to the Exchequer so that in due course they can buy food at the same amount below world prices. The housewife might buy her butter below what it costs to produce it; she saves a few pence on her ration of butter. Her husband, however, pays the equivalent amount in Income Tax, in the tax on cigarettes, on beer—[Interruption.] There are many people paying Income Tax who support the party opposite although they would not like to admit it. I am going through the various taxes, direct and indirect, and I was re-

ferring to the taxes on cigarettes or beer, or the other indirect taxes.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a case as to why food subsidies could not be maintained at the figure fixed by the Labour Government at £410 million Why was it that Lord Woolton and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a specific assurance at the last General Election—only a few months ago—that they would not reduce the subsidies? If they said that then, why did they do it when they got into office?

Major Lloyd George: It depends upon whether—

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Major Lloyd George: I am on my feet and I propose to reply to the hon. Member first. I quote:
We should like to simplify the immensely complicated system"—

Mr. Callaghan: From what is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman reading?

Major Lloyd George: From the book which the right hon. Member rather liked just now. It states:
We should like to simplify the immensely complicated system operating at present and substitute for it methods which supplement the personal incomes of those most hit by living costs. Two examples of such methods are family allowances and differential rates of taxation.
That is exactly what this Government have done. Never before has a promise been carried out in such detail.

Mr. Shinwell: I quote accurately from Lord Woolton's statement, taking into account the context. He stated:
There's the story that the Conservatives would cut food subsidies. That isn't true. What we want to do is to get rid of the need for the food subsidies.
Do hon. Members—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about warmongers?"] We are not talking about warmongers. Do not be irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the argument. Do hon. Members deny that Lord Woolton said this? Lord Wootton has admitted that lie said it.

Major Lloyd George: The short answer is that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may read out, the point is that the real pledge was that nothing would be done about varying the subsidies


unless compensating advantages were introduced. Compensating advantages have been introduced, which was never done by the right hon. Gentleman's Friends when they were in office.
If I may proceed, I was making the point when I was interrupted that, while it is true that the housewife might get a commodity at so much less than the price of production, that has to be paid for by taxes, direct or indirect, in some form or other. It has been calculated that if one takes the average family of, say, a man, wife and two children, the subsidies were worth to them in those days about £33 per year, but if one person in that household drank a pint of beer and smoked a packet of cigarettes a day he paid in a year the whole of that sum in tax. Apart from the fact that the supplying of anything below the cost of production gives a completely false sense. [Interruption.] They have had a relief in the way we wanted to give it.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman now seems to be enunciating a new doctrine, that food subsidies are wholly bad. Do we understand him to be contending that the present Government are against food subsidies altogether and that next year they will wipe them out entirely?

Major Lloyd George: I never said anything of the sort. I was answering an interruption. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear it.
What an indiscriminate process the subsidy is at the present time. The food subsidies are shared out to rich, to the middle classes and to the poor alike. The supertax-payer gets his share of food subsidies. The best hotel—or the luxury hotel, if we call it that—gets its share of them. It gets its food at subsidised prices like everybody else.
It it not only the waste, in real and in administrative terms, which worries us. The collecting of over £400 million from the taxpayer for the food subsidies has helped to build up taxation levels which crippled enterprise and initiative throughout the country. Subsidies have obscured the difficulties which the country was experiencing in paying its way. Many of our people were misled into the feeling that we could enjoy a higher standard of living than we were earning.
Moreover, the food subsidies gave producers a feeling of insulation from their market. As food prices rose, the producers were saved from wondering whether the increases would have any effect on their total sales, since they probably felt that the Government would pay the subsidy anyhow. One of the most valuable aids to efficient trading, the fear of pricing oneself out of the market, was removed.
I cannot help but observe from my own experience that this arrangement seems to have encouraged many good men in the food trades, both here and overseas, to concentrate their energies on how best to justify their claim for increased costs to the Ministry of Food rather than on how to get their own costs down. That is just one way in which enterprise has been misdirected by this State trading.
Those are among the reasons which led, once we had discovered how precarious was the economic health of the country, to the decision to reduce the food subsidies below the level of £410 million which the late Government fixed. The Chancellor decided that the subsidies should be reduced to a rate of £250 million a year, but he did not fix a subsidy ceiling for 1952–53. The actual food subsidy bill for that year will depend upon the date on which the price increases are made so as to bring the subsidy down to a rate of £250 million.
Whatever our opinions may be about the usefulness and the economic merits of subsidies, we have to begin by recognising the limits to the possibilities of making changes. We have to go cautiously, because of the effect which sudden and large changes of prices may have on food consumption and indirectly on other aspects of our economic life. We wish to ensure that the consequences of the economic failures of the late Government do not hit unduly old-age pensioners, children and other social groups—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that phrase includes them all—about whom we all have some concern, I hope, on both sides of the Committee. The increases in food prices necessary to bring the subsidy down from an annual rate of £410 million to £250 million are being carefully timed and must be viewed not only against the substantial compensating benefits but also against the increase in wage rates and earnings to which I have already referred.
The increases in bread and flour prices had to be made to meet the normal increases which we could foresee at the beginning of the year in the cost of buying our food in 1952–53 including increases in the cost of home-produced food. This increase would have to be made in any case, to keep the subsidy down to £410 million, and had nothing to do with the reduction in the subsidy total. Apart from the increases in bread and flour, no increases were made before the Income Tax reliefs under P.A.Y.E. became payable, and the new rates of National Assistance became effective.
Then, on 15th June, the increased prices of meat and tea came into operation. The new milk prices will take effect on 1st July. I am holding back other increases which are necessary until the increased family allowances and retirement pensions, the last of the compensating social security benefits, are introduced and become effective in the Autumn.
This effort to synchronise the adjustments means that it will cost us more for food subsidies than if we had followed the procedure of the last Administration and let prices rise suddenly and steeply. By making the changes gradually, the food subsidy bill for this year—although we shall be down to a rate of £250 million—will obviously be more than £250 million. The revised estimates of the Ministry of Food for the current year will be available on 2nd July, that is, next Wednesday. I do not want to go into details about them, but since they will contain the estimated figures of the total subsidies for the year, I think the Committee will wish to know of them.
Although we shall implement the Chancellor's policy of getting the food subsidies down to an annual rate of £250 million a year, the subsidy bill for the financial year 1952–53 is estimated at about £310 million. Our decision to time these price increases in this way may also be assisted by some change in world price levels, which are already apparent. Most of the significant changes are in raw material prices, which I will leave to my right hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate.
My own Ministry has benefited modestly from a fall in freight rates. This time last year it cost about £9 to £10 per ton to carry sugar from Australia to the

United Kingdom. The current rate has fallen to about £4 10s. There are some foods, notably some types of oils, oil seeds, and most animal feedingstuffs, which have been falling in price. Unfortunately, my ability to take supply advantage of these changes is hampered by our balance-of-trade position. We cannot remind ourselves too often that if we are to have more food we must send more exports.
While we must all regret the economic difficulties, whether they be due to the late Administration or to long-term economic changes which have resulted in these—increases—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which is it"?] A little bit of both. I have tried to indicate where I thought the blame lay and I think I have made out a fairly good case—and while we must all regret that the causes I have mentioned have resulted in these increases of just under 5 per cent. in the all-items index since October, 1951, we must not try to exaggerate them. It would be wrong to over-estimate the effects of this increase on food consumption.
There are as yet no signs of any significant change in food consumption as a result of the price increases. The right hon. Member for Easington talked about the working man not being able to buy meat. The meat increase has hardly been on for a fortnight, and I should like to know of his researches in that period which show a clear picture of the result of the increases upon meat consumption. I have not seen any result through our administrative machinery; none at all.
The people of this country—let us face up to these facts—spent £670 million in the first quarter of this year on food consumed in their homes, including chocolate and sugar confectionery. They also spent nearly £200 million on tobacco. They spent £173 million on alcoholic drinks. That is in the first quarter of this year. They spent about £80 million in all on entertainment in that first quarter. That is not the pattern of expenditure of a people who are hard up against the cost of living. I am certain that, despite the increased cost of food supplies, there was no difficulty whatever in purchasing them. It is inevitable that we on this side of the Committee should be reminded of some of the things which the Opposition did. After all, they have had plenty of experience of the rising cost of living.
As I told the Committee on 15th May, the increase in the prices of basic foods which the Opposition made in little more than two years—that is from 1st April, 1949, to 31st July, 1951—averaged £250 million per annum; and they managed to give us an economic crisis almost every year. So they had the experience and the opportunity to reach the right conclusions even if they had not the courage to put them into effect.
Hon. Members opposite have tried their remedies with sorry results on prices, as I have shown. They have produced only higher prices. The way to lower prices is surely through efficient production, purchasing and distribution. We believe that private enterprise, taking its own risks, being responsible for its own costs, can in the long run do more to bring down the cost of production and distribution than all the restrictions of State trading and controls.
It is easy to understand why the Opposition decided to have this debate now: they want to place the responsibility for the present position of the country on the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. They feel that sufficient time has elapsed since the election to make people forget where the responsibility really rests, and that is on the shoulders of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I wish to emphasize two points, in conclusion. Until last November the Opposition had been in office for six years with one of the largest majorities of this century. During that period they received by way of loans and gifts about £2,228 million, the overwhelming part of it in dollars. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did we give away?"] You gave some away, but you kept most of it.

Mr. Shinwell: indicated dissent.

Major Lloyd George: The fact is that of the £2,228 million—the right hon. Gentleman can deny it as much as he pleases—after a war, for the first time in our history, we received large sums of money. That represents nearly one-third of the bill for foreign food imports into this country, and the vast part of it was in dollars. Think what we could do with some of those dollars today. Despite the unprecedented assistance which that Government received, when they left office food rations were, in

general, no better than when they came in, and the cost of food had risen steadily until, by the time they left, it was 58 per cent. higher than it was before they came in.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: rose—

Major Lloyd George: I have stated the facts and I am grateful to the Opposition for having given me an opportunity to do so.

5.3 p.m.

Min Jennie Lee: There have been times when I have been embarrassed and distressed in listening to the right hon. and gallant Member. We do not mind when it is the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now rushing out for a cup of tea which he probably thinks he deserves. After all, every court is entitled to its jester. As the Parliamentary Secretary has made himself the cheap jack of the party opposite, it is fun when he makes the kind of speech that we can simply laugh at on this side of the Committee.
I repeat, however, that I have been distressed to the point of embarrassment at moments when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking, because it is sad to think that such a radical father should have produced such a reactionary son. We miss very much in this House another member of his family, and we shall be glad to see her back. But when she comes back here, I cannot possibly imagine that it will be to join hon. Members opposite. I think that the radical mood of the family is alive, but not in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Dr. H. Morgan: He is dead anyway.

Miss Lee: One wondered at times while he was speaking if he was reading a brief which he had been too hot to study before he came to the Committee. There were moments when one wondered whether he meant what he said. For instance, someone had provided him with the obviously cheap points that the luxury hotels enjoy subsidised food and that the richest people enjoy it. What is the logic of that? Does he think it is wrong that they should have subsidised food? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The right


hon. and gallant Gentleman can probably reply for himself.
However, some hon. Members opposite say that it is wrong that luxury hotels should enjoy subsidised food, and no doubt that well-to-do people should not enjoy subsidised food. Have I still got the agreement of hon. Members opposite? If that is the case, does it mean that hon. Members opposite want to end all food subsidies?
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was asked that question and he dodged a reply. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not the point."] If the hon. Member has not got the point, and since it is too hot a day to hurry, I will take my time. Luxury foods and hotels ought not to be subsidised. Where does that lead us? To one of two conclusions. It could lead us to having no subsidies.

Mr. Mellish: Or no food for the rich.

Miss Lee: It means, either no subsidies or a means test—in other words, anyone who wants subsidised food has to declare their income.
But what a cheat it all is, particularly when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says to this Committee, "Of course if food is costing more, if we have cut down subsidies on food, we have made that good by family allowances and differential Income Tax." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows better. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should know that in the case of a household with £20 a week to spend on running the home the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer has been kind enough to give them £1 back.
That is a rough figure, because in some instances it is more and in some instances less, but I do not think anyone would quibble on that point. If one is going out with a shopping basket, £1 more helps quite a bit. It is true that it does not go very far if one has to get extra cheese outside rationed cheese, an extra bit of tinned meat, an extra bit of good quality fish and, in weather like this, people want fresh fruit and vegetables. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will ask his charming wife, she will tell him that £1 does not go far, but it helps.
Yet how cruel it is that, when a Tory Chancellor can hand back £1 to a family

with roughly £20 to spend on housekeeping in order to help them meet the little extra cost of milk and bread and so on, he is not handing back £1 to the family man earning £5, £6 or £7 a week who is paying no Income Tax but has to meet the higher cost of food just the same. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows those things, so why did he say what he did? He knows perfectly well that he was put up at that Box today to fill the undignified roll of a Tory "stooge."
I say that it is unworthy of him and that he knows better. The Prime Minister did not think it worth his while to appear on the Front Bench today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nor the Chancellor."]—yet the Leader of the Opposition was here. Apparently a cost of living debate is not an important subject for hon. Members opposite. They come here in as reduced numbers as they possibly can, and they put up the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring forward arguments in which I am quite certain he himself does not believe.

Major Lloyd George: indicated dissent.

Miss Lee: I have never fought any election or made any speech, advocating cheapness at any cost. Food can be too cheap, as can furniture and clothes. I have the honour to represent a constituency which is devoted to mining in one part and to agriculture in another. I would say to the colliers' wives at one end of my constituency, when the Housewives League was telling them that food was too dear—I wonder where that dear old League is now. I wonder whether if we were to look under the benches opposite we would find any of its members.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: The hon. Lady was saying that the Prime Minister was not here, but there are two former Ministers of Food in the Opposition and neither of them is here. Where is the responsible right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition side?

Miss Lee: The difference between the hon. Gentleman's side and ours is that ours is adequately manned even when our Front Bench is not here. But even this afternoon our Front Bench has been far more adequately manned than the Government Front Bench. I simply repeat, since the attention of the Committee has been drawn once again to that


point, that obviously this is not an important subject of discussion for the Government because neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the House is present. But it is a much more important subject for us.
The Housewives' League was extremely busy when we were the Government, but it has apparently finished now.

Dr. Barnett Stross: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? It would not be correct to say that the Housewives' League is no longer altogether active. The League is at present interested in the effect of agenised flour upon human beings. Many of them believe one effect is to produce forgetfulness and loss of memory. Perhaps this explains why the Government has so soon forgotten its election promises.

Miss Lee: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend who is an expert on every subject on which he speaks. I have an idea about some members of the Housewives' League. May be they have gone abroad or are on holiday, or may be they are going to come back and tell us how much better than ours is every other country. If the Government continue in their present form it only requires food to be a little more expensive and for there to be a little more unemployment for them to be able to distinguish themselves by abolishing rationing altogether. Would it not be wonderful to abolish rationing and to have plenty for those who have lots of money with which to buy food because those who are poor can no longer afford to buy their fair share?

Mrs. Braddock: That is happening already.

Miss Lee: As soon as the war ended, we had Members coming back to the House telling us that Belgium was a paradise and that its shops were full of goods. Then it was Italy which was the paradise. Indeed, every other country was a paradise. They had fat steaks and rich foods, and everything one could wish for. But we as the Government had to explain that although there might be so much glamour in the foreground abroad we had just that extra bit of security and comfort in the background. The people were not so afraid because, as I say, we were concerned about the standard of living.
When I was interrupted, I was saying that I had miners at one end of my area. I would say to their wives, "Of course, you want cheap food, but do you want food so cheap that you are going to give starvation wages to the agricultural workers?" To the agricultural workers I said, "Of course, you want cheap coal"—and the hon. Member opposite did his little bit of mischief there—"but do you want your coal so cheap that the miners will have to receive starvation wages?"
I do not apologise to hon. Members opposite for talking such elementary economics, because, apparently, they do not understand. If we talk to any sensible audience outside the House they understand that the important thing is the standard of living. They want fair prices for agricultural and industrial commodities.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Lady was referring to me just now.

Miss Lee: The hon. Gentleman is quite right; I was.

Mr. Nabarro: Would she mind telling me, because I am particularly interested in all matters concerning mining, of what piece of mischief in connection with coal production I am guilty.

Miss Lee: Nowadays I do not hear the hon. Gentleman talking so much about stone in coal and giving the reasons for it. He claimed to be an expert on mining questions, but at the same time there was a great deal he left unexplained.

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Miss Lee: I cannot give way again because this is a food debate, not a coal debate.
What were we trying to do when we were the Government? We were trying, and succeeding, so to regulate taxation, children's allowances and the cost of food and food subsidies that every family in the land should begin to have at least the essentials guaranteed. That is already no longer the situation. It is quite true that while food is more expensive there are many lines in clothing and furnishing textiles that are cheaper.
Why are they cheaper? One reason is that as soon as food prices rise the family has to do without those little bits of


clothing and household furnishings. If we go to the great department stores, we find that firms like Lewis's with moderately expensive lines are seeking to cut down wages, which is a very "helpful" thing to do. It is a dangerous thing to be sarcastic in the House so I had better put that right and say that it is a very foolish thing to do.
The cheaper the store, the better is their business. It is the cheaper lines that are doing better. Why is that? The reason is that the first line of retreat is to go from the more expensive commodities which are not always better, though often better and last longer, to the cheapest pair of shoes or garment that can be got in which to carry on. As all working-class folk know, if one cannot afford the initial outlay one very often has to pay for it later on.
I hope we are not going to degenerate into what we see in many parts of the world today, the system which hon. Members opposite admired so much when they were on holiday abroad. Of course, all of us who can manage it like a holiday abroad sometimes, but it was particularly nauseating that those who could afford holidays abroad and who came back and told us how wonderful everything was for people in other countries failed to make clear that there were goods in the shop windows in abundance and no rationing system because there were millions of people who could not afford to buy even the most modest quantity. We are going in that direction at the present time.
I would never dare address the Committee as an expert on agriculture. I have to listen humbly and carefully to those hon. Members who know what we can do to increase our own food production here. But anyone using his eyes when travelling around Great Britain cannot help being struck by the amount of good land which is still being abused in this country. I hope that the Minister of Food will co-operate with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture to see whether we are not having too much fancy capital put into the land by fancy people who are not really farmers. The result is that men of country stock are not getting a chance to lease a farm and are not able to get land for themselves. If the Minister will go to his own part of Wales he will find—

Captain Christopher Soames: Is the hon. Lady inferring that, on the whole, land in this country is at present over-capitalised?

Miss Lee: I am inferring that at the present moment there are parts of the land of this country which may be undercapitalised, in which case it is the business of the Government, or, maybe it is badly farmed. But the external evidence which strikes a person like myself is that there is far too much good land in this country which is still being neglected. I was about to say that in the main—and I speak with diffidence—the very large and prosperous farmer has been getting too much public money while a great many marginal farms have not been given as much help as they needed. I am confining myself merely to what I see and, even in Wales, I see large tracts—not of high mountain peaks, but good fertile ground—covered with bracken.
I hope that in considering the cost of living and in particular the price of food, we shall do even more to develop our own production, because all over the world people now want to eat. We shall never again get into the situation in which we could sell expensive industrial goods and in return get good cheap food. I do not stress that elementary point because we are all agreed on it. I think the logic of it is that we have to do much more to grow food for ourselves in this country. In the meantime, until we reach that destination, do not mock poor people—for whom the main item week by week is buying food—by telling them that we have introduced a differential Income Tax rate which covers the cost for them.
My last point refers to the old people. Before I had intimate personal knowledge of the care of old people, I foolishly assumed that perhaps the older we got the less we needed in nourishment. I now think many people go through three stages. In the middle years they may need less, but, as they get older, it is just that extra bit of protein, that extra bit of food, that rich nourishing diet, which can make all the difference. We are not only mocking the family man and woman with young children by pretending that they are not suffering from increased prices, but we are mocking old people because old people in Britain today cannot get the good mixed diet they


ought to have at the present level of prices.
We have not reached the end of the road yet, but the direction in which we are travelling is one which fills many of us with anxiety and dismay. We say that in good times and in bad times we ought so to organise our fiscal system and the distribution of our food resources that at least we do not do as now, place the heaviest burden on the poor family groups and old people.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: It is always much more pleasant to agree with people than to disagree. Therefore, I think many of us on this side of the Committee found ourselves happy at least to agree with the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) when she stressed the necessity of an increase in our agricultural production.
When she was speaking, however, some of us who know a little about agriculture felt that perhaps it would have been better if, during the time the Labour Party were in office, it had not been a fact that 50,000 acres of good agricultural land went out of production every year and that the impetus of our agricultural programme had not been stopped. In fact, in the last two years of Labour rule agricultural production declined. But this is not a debate about agriculture although, of course, home food production plays a necessarily important part in the cost of our food supplies.
I thought, during the speech of the hon. Lady, of an article in a journal—not "Tribune" but a journal called, I believe, the "Labour Woman"—which said recently:
Fortunately, the prices of clothing, footwear and household textiles have been falling recently, and there is every indication that this process will continue. To some extent, therefore, rising food prices are being offset by reductions elsewhere.
Let us get down to the realities of the situation, because we all want to see the prices of food steady and coming down. What are the realities of the situation? The first is that for 12 years there have been continual shortages throughout the world, including this country, of essential foodstuffs and for the last two years world food prices have been rising. There is no disposition to dispute that in any informed circles of which I have any knowledge.
The right hon. Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb), the former Minister of Food, would certainly not have disagreed. He said in a speech in his constituency on 9th October, just before his Government went out of power:
No Minister of Food coming back to the job after the Election can avoid the stark inescapable facts, and in the short run nobody can make any appreciable difference in the amount of food, the variety, the price, or the general organisation, if he is going to act face to face with realities.
After the General Election, when he found himself in Opposition—just a month after that first quotation—he said in the House on 9th November, 1951:
Our problems are inherent in our situation as an over-populated island, which cannot ever hope to feed itself, and must now compete for diminishing exportable food surpluses with the growing demands for food right across the world;"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 502.]
That was not the kind of thing we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) Most of us were a little surprised when we heard that he was to open this debate—as he is a stranger to all questions of food—instead of the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central. But, perhaps it is not so surprising because the right hon. Member for Easington comes without this background which I have tried to indicate in the quotations I have given.
The right hon. Member for Easington either did not trouble to inform himself of these harsh realities, or he has deliberately distorted and suppressed the facts to gain a transient party advantage from misfortunes we all share and to which Socialist policy, as I shall shortly show, has largely contributed.
How did the Socialists meet the situation with which they were faced? They inherited a war-time system of the procurement and distribution of food and an administrative organisation which, although it may have been adequate for the exigencies of a blockade economy, is not necessarily so for the wholly different circumstances of peace-time.
What were the essentials of that system which they inherited and in which they persisted? First of all, one Ministry, the Ministry of Food, bought the whole of our supplies of imported and home-grown food, controlled its distribution and fixed the retail price, whilst, at the same time,


another Ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture, fixed the growers' price. Any difference between the fixed growers' price of the Ministry of Agriculture and the fixed retail price of the Ministry of Food had to be borne by the unfortunate taxpayer. It was a system which the "Economist"described as
A system which is hardly calculated to stimulate realism and efficiency in the official controllers.
Yet for six years, whilst they held the reins of office, the Socialist Party made no attempt whatsoever to alter the cumbersome system of controls which this organisation made necessary. Moreover, they continued to pay subventions to private traders who, because of State buying and controlled distribution of food, were denied the opportunity of the full exercise of their skilled services by the Socialist Government's obstinate clinging to the rigidness and roughness of the wartime system of distribution with it extensive elaboration of controls and its denial of consumer choice.
The high-water mark of fatuity was reached when they gave millions of pounds to retailers, who had not the opportunity of exercising their accustomed skill, because they were unable to receive meat which for nine months the Socialists could not get from the largest of our pre-war suppliers. I think they were quite right to go on with that system then, but how foolish that, although they had been in office for four or five years, they should persist for so long in such a system.
At any time from 1946 onwards they could progressively have handed back the procurement of essential items of food, including meat, to the private buyer, but, instead of that, they persisted in the system of State trading. Successive Ministers of Food from Sir Ben Smith, who loomed so largely in our discussions in the House five or six years ago and of whom we hardly hear anything at all now, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central all held the office of Minister of Food during the Socialist Administration.
In passing, neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central has been

in the Committee this afternoon. What a remarkable thing that during a debate on food prices neither of the two Ministers of Food in the previous Administrations have appeared for one moment. I beg the Committee's pardon, but I think the latter statement is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West appeared for a moment in the Committee, and that was to ask for tickets of admission at the Serjeant at Arms' Chair. That is the only appearance we have had from that right hon. Gentleman, and we have not seen at all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central.
These Ministers of Food over a period of six years refused to depart from a system—and if I may I will continue to use meat as an example—under which the butcher had to take what he was given and the housewife had no choice whatsoever of the type or variety of meat that she could buy.

Mr. Thomas Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what change has been made in the procurement of meat since this Government took office; and, secondly, what choice the housewife has today?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps do me the honour of listening to the argument which I am unfolding. If he does, he will see that I am going to discuss the points on which he has asked me questions.
Time and time again my hon. Friends and I, when we sat on the opposite side of the Committee, made speeches the theme of which was that Government purchases and State trading in the procurement of meat not only led to bitter recriminations between countries that ought to have been friends, but it gave no incentive to the producer to produce the type, the quality or the quantity of meat that the consumer wanted, and that the best meat was reserved for the private trade while the Government contract only got the scrapings of the barrel. The reply always given by the Government side to the arguments which we advanced was, that that might be so but State trading at any rate gave cheaper supplies.

Mr. T. Williams: Where?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: That is what we were told. The right hon. Gentleman's friends always said that.

Mr. Edward Evans: That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite say.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: We were told that the one advantage of State trading was it enabled us to buy our meat cheaper. I doubt very much if that is true in the long run, and let me say why. Private traders are far more sensitive to demand and supply. They are far more flexible than are Government buyers, with their long-term contracts and their blanket prices fixed at least a year ahead. The Government buyer is up against the difficulty that he has to strike a price which meets, on the one hand, the consumer's ability to pay; and, on the other, the producer's willingness to produce.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central saw that quite clearly after he left office—I do not know if he saw it when he was in office—as is shown in a broadcast which he made on 21st January in the Home Service. I took the trouble to provide myself with a copy of the broadcast, and this is what the former Minister of Food said:
At the same time there is a problem here, this problem of cheap food. Now, certainly we can't have cheap food at the expense of the producers. Quite frankly, the ordinary housewife in this country who has got a very difficult job must face the fact that she's not going to get any food at all, either from home producers or dominion producers or overseas producers if she's not prepared to give them a reasonable reward for the work they do in producing that food. You're not going to get cheap food any more in that way. That's the fundamental fact we've got to face. …
That is the right hon. Member for Bradford, Central. What a pity he did not take more action on that at that time.
May I just make a further point on this question of cheaper food? I see that Mr. McEwen the Australian Minister of Commerce is quoted in "The Times" on 21st January as having said that since the United Kingdom Government have established a monopoly in imports they have screwed the price of Australian foodstuffs down to levels unprofitable to the producers.
Let me give one more example, the example of Eire. Eire has recently sent cargoes of beef to the United States Forces in America. She has sent cargoes of beef to the United States Forces in Germany; and, most remarkable of all, she has sent

consignments of beef on the hoof by ship from Dublin to Liverpool; by train from Liverpool to Folkestone, and by air from Folkestone to Italy, where it is fetching higher prices than we were able to give, even after paying all the expensive costs of transport. At the present time a company has been, or is about to be, formed in Dublin to develop the carcass meat trade. I understand it is erecting chilling plants, or a chilling plant, in Dublin.

Mr. E. Evans: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what the Government have been doing these last nine months to let all that meat go to ruin? They have been in charge all the time.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: That is a very germane point, because some of this happened in the time when the hon. Gentleman's party formed the Administration. But why has it happened? I will tell the hon. Gentleman, not in my own words, but in the authoritative words of the "The Times Agricultural Review," which says:
The only rule that Britain needs to follow in order to retain her position as most favoured customer "—
that is, with Eire—
is not to try to drive too hard a bargain in the matter of prices. … The bulk of the Irish exportable surplus will continue to cross the Irish Sea so long as the price Britain offers is considered fair.

Mr. Evans: Give the price. The party opposite is in power.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: We are in power and my right hon. and gallant Friend—this is no secret—has been holding conversations with the leading meat importers with a view to handing back to the trade as soon as possible.

Mr. Evans: What did they say?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will be successful.
I have listened to a great many speeches made by my right hon. and gallant Friend since he took office and I have read every speech to which I did not have the good fortune to listen. On the subject of the meat trade and private enterprise, I think he advances three propositions. I hope that I am not doing him an injustice. He says, first, that the only hope of more and better meat lies in a return to private


enterprise. Secondly, he says that while food is scarce it must be distributed fairly, and thirdly, that while there is rationing and price control it would be difficult to allow the private purchase of meat. Here is a vicious circle and there is no need for us to blind our eyes to that. But someone has to break out of that vicious circle at some time. Unless we do so we can have no hope of more and better meat.
What about costs? I am not afraid of costs, because I believe that if the trade was handed back to private enterprise exactly the same thing would happen as before the war, that the more expensive cuts would subsidise the cheaper cuts. That did not require any Government planning. It just happened through the normal operation of competitive trade.
I would refer to the very recent example of the importation of poultry and rabbits. When the Socialist Government were in power they did one good thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let us be fair. In June, 1950, they decontrolled the poultry and rabbit trade. Some of their supporters said, "This is awful. The price will rocket to the sky, and supplies will disappear." What happened? Ever since we have had adequate supplies at reasonable prices. The wholesale price of rabbits has been 33 per cent. below the figure for 1951.
I have tried to show that there would be more food if the Socialists had departed from the wartime procedure of purchase and distribution, and it follows clearly that if there had been more food it would not have been so expensive.
I turn to one other important respect in which the position has been worsened by the Socialist policy, that of the food subsidies. The intention of the food subsidies, as everyone knows, was to keep down the cost of living. Quite clearly, they did nothing of the kind. In spite of the enormous expenditure on food subsidies between 1945 and 1951 the purchasing power of the £ fell steadily.
I will give three figures at three-yearly intervals to indicate the trend. In 1945–46 food subsidies stood at £265.5 million, and the purchasing power of the £ was 20s. Three years later, in the financial year 1948–49, food subsidies were £484.4 million, and the pur-

chasing power of the £ was down to 16s. 11d. Three years later, in 1951–52, the food subsidies were £410 million, and by October, 1951, the £ was worth only 14s. 3d.
My right hon. Friend has quoted the late Sir Stafford Cripps on the rise in the food subsidies from £485 million to £568 million from a speech which Sir Stafford Cripps made in this House on 6th April, 1949. I should like to give another quotation from that speech. He said:
Now that just cannot go on. We must call a halt. … Prices have got out of all relationship with realities."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2085.]
At the beginning of 1945–50 food subsidies were £424.8 million and to have kept the price of food stable at that figure throughout the year would have meant another £145 million. What happened? The Labour Party added that £145 million to the cost of food, and retail food prices rose between 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. in 12 months.
As my right hon. and gallant Friend reminded us, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed the food subsidies, last year, 1951–52, at £410 million. But they were running at £20 million above that for five months before we took office. Because of that, this Government had to increase the price of cheese by 10d. a 1b., bacon by 10d. a 1b., and milk by 1d. a quart. If action had been taken by the Labour Government at the proper time, the rise in prices would have been far less.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman twice during his speech. It is not often that I do that. Having given the figures for the two or three periods about the increase in cost of food and the fall in the value of the £, will he now tell the Committee what the changes were in the cost to this country of imported food between 1945 and 1948 and 1948 and 1950, and also the increase in the prices we had to pay to our own farmers because their costs of production had increased?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I cannot give them. I have not the resources of a Government Department. I can only say that we had to increase the subsidies to our own agricultural industry and it was quite right to do so.
The point I was making, and I make it again, is that it is misleading and dishonest, in face of these figures and others that have been given, to infer that retail food prices started to rise with the advent to power of a Conservative Government. They rose more steeply in the first half of 1951 than in the corresponding months of this year. I will quote one figure once again, because it is worth repeating. While the Socialists were in power the cost of food rose by 58 per cent.
I have spoken for too long already, but I want to recapitulate. First, for over six years the Socialists failed to tackle two war-time features of our food policy which are fundamental to a return to a sound economy and ultimately to our chance of securing adequate supplies at fair prices. They perpetuated both the system of Ministry of Food buying and control of distributing and of retail prices, and the system of food subsidies.
These heavy and indiscriminate subsidies on food created in our people a dangerous unawareness of rising food prices. It has been left to a Conservative Government to make a start along the road to a freer economy and, at the same time, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb by devices such as family allowances, the increased social benefits and the reduced Income Tax. While the Socialists held the reins of power the cost of food rose steadily without any compensating advantages. It does not lie in their mouths to censure us upon this account.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: The hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) referred to the question of bulk buying. I asked him to give way because I wanted to know if he means to abolish entirely the bulk buying agreements now in existence. Of those agreements 53 are with the British Commonwealth. They are long-term agreements which give guaranteed prices and markets to the Commonwealth. Am I to understand that it is his philosophy that all these ought to be abolished?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I gladly answer, since I am challenged. I never disagreed with bulk buying. I agree that all good traders buy in bulk when they

get a chance. Certainly, I do not disagree with long-term agreements which give us advantages in the Empire family. What I object to is State-to-State trading.

Mr. Blyton: Then I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman how he would negotiate for those commodities which are in short supply, such as meat, if a State will deal only with a State? I have heard a lot about merchant venturers going out and getting us all the red meat which Lord Woolton promised, but I am given to understand that the meat trade does not want to go back to the pre-war position.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Since the hon. Gentleman has asked me another question, I would say that it is not a fact that the countries with whom we trade will deal only with State organisations. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Argentine. The Argentine is dealing with other countries through private traders. Only in respect of this country is the Argentine dealing through the State trading organisation. The hon. Gentleman said that the trade did not want to go back to the pre-war position. Of course it wants to go back. The meat traders want to get back into the markets because they know that they would do better than the Government are doing at present.

Mr. Blyton: That is contrary to the information which I have, and I have talked to many men who are "in the know" in the meat trade. But I will leave that point because the hon. Gentleman has now gone rather away from the argument about bulk buying agreements.

Mr. George Jeger: On the question of the purchase of Argentine meat, I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that during the last six months we have repeatedly asked the Minister of Food to say who is negotiating the new agreement since the old one expired on 22nd April. We have been told repeatedly that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Buenos Aires is negotiating the new meat agreement, and not the private traders. Therefore, I should think that the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns should address his remarks and strictures to his own Government and to his own Minister of Food, who seems to be departing from what he alleges are Conservative principles and


supporting the principles laid down by the Labour Government.

Mr. Blyton: If I may get on with my own speech, I would point out that I listened attentively to the Minister of Food. If he delivered such doleful speeches in Newcastle then we should surely win the only remaining Conservative seat in that City. It is no good the Minister or anyone else thinking that he can go to the housewife who is spending her husband's wages at the week-end and talk a lot of mumbo-jumbo about the cost of living index figure. I believe that the Minister of Food would get a big surprise if he talked to working-class people on a Saturday morning in the Biggmarket in his own area.
These cost of living questions must be discussed with two considerations in mind. First, what were the promises of the party in power to the people of the cofintry at the Election, and what has been their performance'? Secondly, what is to happen when we have the trade unions seeking increases in wages amounting to £300 million due to the policy of the party opposite? These issues must be faced.
I remember, during the last six years, seeing the fur-coated ladies in Central Lobby calling themselves housewives and harrassing the Labour Party Members. They threatened to burn up their ration cards and heckled the Minister of Food, at that time my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), at every meeting which he attended. From the day of the last Election they have vanished into thin air. Whether they are in hiding, waiting until such time as we come back to power in order to emerge again, or whether they have had instructions from the Tory Central Office to keep quiet, one cannot tell. There is one thing we are assured upon, and that is that their absolute quietness at present proves that they were in no way non-political when they were active at the time when the Labour Government was in power.
At the last Election Lord Woolton said quite definitely to the people of this country that it was a Socialist trick to say that, if they were returned, they would slash the food subsidies, at the same time as he was promising the people more red meat. We know what they have done. On top of this, there were the import cuts,

which are equivalent to 3d. per person throughout the country of non-rationed meat which was available before the Election.
So much for the better diet. There have been cuts in the imports of meat, canned fish, fruit and vegetables, fresh fruits, cakes and confectionery. At the same time, we have been told by the Minister of Food in the recent debate that butter is now to be regarded as a luxury. It seems that it will be a case of butter for those with wealth and margarine for those at the bottom of the scale.
What about the cost of living? Flow do their actions compare with their promises? During the first three months in which they were in power, they increased the monthly rail fares by 2s. in the £. They increased the price of coal by 6s. per ton. Furniture prices were increased by over 10 per cent., petrol was put up ¼d a gallon, cheese went up by 10d. per 1b., milk by 1d. a pint and flour by½d. per lb. Not only that, there were increases in the prices of semolina and sago, tapioca, tinned vegetables, non-rationed cheese and many other things.
That was followed by the Budget, which put 1½d. more on the loaf of 1¾ 1b., and they increased the price of a stone of flour by 1s. 5½d. per stone. They increased meat by 4d. per 1b. and put another 1d. per pint on the milk, while the seasonal 1d. per pint did not come off. Tea has gone up in price because the subsidy has been abolished, and there are increases yet to be announced on butter, cheese, fats, sugar, bacon and eggs. Everyone now has to pay 1s. for a prescription when they fall ill. On top of all this, there is the 7½d. per gallon which has been put on the price of petrol, which is bound to find its way on to the prices of the goods which the people buy, because the transport charges for carrying the goods will go up. Then, we have had the farm Price Review, and, shortly, this will be having its effect upon the cost of living.
It is this background and history which has determined the trade unionists of this country to seek increased wages to meet these increased costs imposed on the family purse. It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking away the only cushion there was for the trade union leaders to restrain their members, which he did by slashing the food subsidies and


giving to the well-to-do £180 million in Income Tax, thereby taking away the only leg on which a trades union official could stand when trying to restrain his members on the question of the increased cost of living.
The Minister has talked of the benefits of the abolition of subsidies. Why did he not tell the Committee that much of the increased benefits in social insurance are to be met by increases in the cost of the insurance stamp, which constitute another additional burden imposed on the cost of living of the people. How the old age pensioner is going to fare by the end of this year I do not know, but it is estimated in trade union circles that, by the end of this year, the cost of living will have increased by at least 5s. per head of the population. It is because of these terrible figures with which they are faced that the trade union movement, quite rightly, has had to demand increased wages to meet this new onslaught on their members' standard of life.
What is the effect of all this? I often wonder whether it is the deliberate policy of the Government to create a margin of unemployment that will be a corrective on the trade unions in seeking to push forward their applications for wage increases such as are now being demanded as a result of the Government's policy. Are we to see the Government this year asking the trade unions not to press wage claims, and are we to see the Conservative Party telling employers not to grant increases in wages because of increased costs that have to be faced?
If that is the policy, and I am very suspicious that it is, at the end of this year there will be industrial strife in this country. It is because I feel that this is such an important problem that we are facing today that I would like some declaration from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to what the policy of the Government is going to be, in the light of the facts which I have brought to their attention.
We have unhappy memories. When the Tory Party put up prices after the First World War, we remember our experience of what they did then, and we know how prices were inflated. Some people believe that the same situation is developing now. I am wondering whether what we are now seeing is the same kind of policy as we

saw in 1920, which led to such disastrous years in the 30's.
Therefore, I wish to conclude by saying this. What we have given to the pensioners is not good enough. How they will live by the end of this year, when costs are going up against them, as I have already indicated, I do not know. As for the trade unions, they will fight for their members, and the Front Bench opposite ought to remember that, when we have working women demanding from their husbands more wages to meet the increased costs which they have to pay, it is then that we get the upsurge in the trade union movement which will make it impossible for national leaders, who want to do all they can towards restraint, as long as that is possible, to prevent the pressing of the wage demands of their people.
During the last week, I have been among many working-class people in my own area and in the big town of South Shields, and I have listened to them and talked with them. Over and over again, they have told me, these workers in pit, factory and shipyard, that the urge comes to them from their wives every week to take home more wages to meet the increased prices which their wives have to pay in the shops every Saturday.
I will finish by giving a warning to the Government that they should not tell employers to refuse wage increases to men who are seeking them, but rather that they should go back to the sound policy of subsidising foodstuffs and thereby giving the trade union leaders some leg on which to stand in an attempt to get through our economic difficulties with industrial harmony rather than industrial strife in the period ahead of us.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) except in one particular. If he reads in HANSARD tomorrow the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in opening the debate, neither he nor any of his colleagues on that side of the Committee will ever again be able to deny that it was that party which first cut the food subsidies—and they did it without offering any compensation whatever such as has been included in our Budget this year.
I was rather interested in some of the things that the right hon. Member for Easington omitted to say. He omitted, for instance, to refer to any of those indirect influences on the cost of living, but not on the cost of living index, such as, for example, the £35 million worth of canned ham at extraordinarily high prices which was brought into this country instead of meat. If that £35 million had been spent on meat, we should have got a good deal more meat. Nor did the right hon. Member mention that it was his Government that was instrumental in bringing sugar and fat into the country, at astonishingly high prices, as a mixture instead of bringing in the sugar and the fat at the reasonable prices at which they could have been imported. I am very glad to know that our Minister has taken that matter well in hand already.
I must, of course, declare an interest in this matter. It is well known, I am sure, to my hon. Friends on this side that I am in the food trade. In that trade I am no advocate of high prices, because there is no greater deterrent to expanding and increasing trade than high prices, which ultimately lead to stagnation. There has been no greater contribution to keeping down the cost of living than the vigorous and healthy competition within the trade itself. That is a matter of trade history.
The burden of the Opposition's case is that prices are high and that they have increased rapidly during the recent months when we have been in power; and they claim that we are, therefore, responsible. But they have made no reference whatever to their own responsibilities in this matter. Are prices really high, or do they only seem to be?

Mrs. Braddock: It depends on what you have in your pocket.

Mr. Hudson: It is my contention, as I shall demonstrate beyond doubt, that in relation to wages, our prices of food are extremely low. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That may be quite a surprise to some hon. Members—

Mr. Cecil Poole: The hon. Member is selling food, and not buying it.

Mr. Hudson: We are in this position today largely because of the foolish

policy pursued by the party opposite during the last six and a half weary and dreary years.

Mr. G. Jeger: If the hon. Member thinks that prices are not too high, why did he spend a considerable time eight months ago, together with the rest of his party, in promising to bring down those prices?

Mr. Hudson: I am ready to accept that challenge, and I shall demonstrate to the hon. Member exactly how we shall bring down the cost of living. We have already made a very good start.
We are in this position today largely because of the policy that has been pursued by hon. Members opposite—an ignorant and arrogant policy, ignorant because they did not know what they were doing, and arrogant because they thought they could stem the tide of world events. No country, let alone this country, can afford to stand out against the world economy as the party opposite tried to do.
It is because we have wet-nursed the people of this country by the subsidies that today they are saying that prices are high when, as I shall show in a moment, they are low. Let us look at some prices, In September, 1939, the price of home-killed beef was: ribs, 1s. 4d.; in June, 1952, it was 2s. 4d. For thin flank, it was 1s. in 1939, and is now 1s. 6d. British mutton: legs, is. 6d. then, 2s. 10d. now. Canterbury lamb: then, 1s. 4d.; now, 2s. 8d.—and all those prices are with the bone in. I say that for a particular reason. In 1939, bread cost 9d. for 4 lb. Now, the price is 1s. 5¼d. Danish butter: then, 1s. 3d.; now 2s. 6d. Margarine, then, 9d.; now 1s. 2d. Milk, 7d. then, 1s. 1d. now. Tea, which in those days cost from 1s. 8d. to 3s. 8d., now costs from 3s. 8d. upwards. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that of those prices, only two have doubled and all the others have increased by considerably less than 100 per cent. since 1939.
What has happened to wages? It is very difficult to produce a calculation, but I am giving a very modest estimate when I say that rates of wages have increased two and a quarter times—and that is an understatement.

Mr. Mellish: I am following what the hon. Member is saying. He is saying


that wage rates have kept pace with food prices, but the figures he is using relate to a time when the Labour Government were in office. Since then the Tories have been in office, and in my constituency, for example, we now have considerable unemployment. Men who before were earning £8, £10 or £12, are now getting only £4 8s., which is the Assistance level. How does the hon. Member relate his remarks to those people?

Mr. Hudson: I shall be very glad to deal with what has happened since the Tories came into power.
Wage rates, at a modest estimate, have increased by at least two and a quarter times. Actual earnings, however, are considerably greater, because the basic working hours are fewer. It can be shown that wage earnings have increased by no less than 165 per cent.; in other words, they are much more than two and a half times what they were in 1939. In my own trade, the top rate basic wage of a male grocer's assistant, which in 1939 was 55s., is now 120s., which represents an increase of 118.18 per cent. The top rate for women has gone up from 34s. to 86s. a week, or an increase of 152.94 per cent. Those are the basic rates; and, as I have said, earnings are considerably higher because basic hours are very much lower. In fact earnings have increased by 165 per cent.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: rose—

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more. To argue about food prices in relation to the cost of living is entirely wrong. It is a fallacy which arises from the fact that during the last six and a half years the public have been protected or have been deceived as to the real cost of food.

Mr. Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—

Mr. Hudson: No, I cannot give way. I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who wanted to know what had happened since the Tory Party came into power.

Mr. Thomas: Will the hon. Member allow me?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Frank Bowles): Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat, or otherwise he must leave the Chamber.

Mr. Hudson: It is well known that in 1947 an entirely different basis was adopted for the calculation of retail prices and I will not go back beyond that date. Taking 100 in June, 1947, the average of wages in June, 1948, was 106. In October, 1951, it was 122—an increase of 16 points. Taking the retail prices of all items at 100 in June, 1947, the 1948 average was 118. In October, 1951, it was 129—an increase of 21 points.
It is absolutely clear from those figures, which are taken from the Monthly Digest of Statistics, that the advantage which wages admittedly had over prices at the end of the war was being steadily eradicated during the period of government of hon. Members opposite. Since then there has been a rise of six points in both wages and retail prices up to the end of April, 1952. In other words, prices have advanced only at the same rate as wages during the last few months while we have been in office.

Mr. Thomas: So we are no better off.

Mr. Hudson: Reference has been made to the prices of food abroad. It is worth having a look at some of the prices in England and abroad. Butter costs about 6s. a lb. in France and sugar 1s. 1¾d. Bread, which costs 4d. here, costs 8d. in France. Coffee costing about 5s. a lb. here costs 6s. 6d. there, and currants, which are 1s. a lb. here, cost 1s. 8d. a lb. in France. I believe it is an understatement to say that rates of wages are no higher in France than they are here.
I think I have said sufficient already to indicate that the prices of food in this country in relation to wages are still extremely reasonable and relatively low. Hon. Members opposite do not like what I am saying, but I am speaking from facts and figures to which hon. Members are perfectly able to refer themselves.

Mrs. Braddock: The hon. Member should do the shopping.

Mr. Hudson: I should like to refer finally to matters which have been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). There is no doubt whatever that the rise in the cost


of living in this country is the direct responsibility of hon. Members opposite. During their period of office of six and a half years they attempted to overcome world conditions by buying cheap and selling dear. We had a seller's market in all countries during those years. They attempted to buy food at much less than world costs of production and to sell our own goods as dear as possible.

Mr. Poole: But we did buy the food.

Mr. Hudson: The result is that producers have learned to mistrust the intentions and integrity of bulk buyers and production has not expanded as it should have done, and as it would have done if proper prices had been paid.

Mr. Thomas: Before the hon. Member leaves that point—

Mr. Hudson: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Member for Easington said that between the wars the price of food, or the cost of living, was too high in relation to wages. I remind hon. Members opposite that by 1922 everything in this country was de-controlled. Prices rose sharply for a brief period but it was not many years before Danish bacon, for instance, was being sold in this country at 6d. a lb. So the right hon. Gentleman's statement was utterly wrong and absurd.
Prices which prevailed between the wars prove that once bulk buying is abandoned and there is the freedom to buy and to trade, upon which our policy is based, supply overtakes demand and the cost of living comes down. That is the fundamental principle upon which we base our case and until we get to that point the cost of living never will come down. When that principle is applied, it will come down and then hon. Members opposite will have to withdraw.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Percy Daises: The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. W. R. A. Hudson) has made an extremely useful speech, if not as a contribution to a serious discussion of the problem, certainly as a contribution to the propaganda of the Opposition. I do not want to be too unkind to him, but he certainly conveyed to me that he thought very strongly that the workers were far too well off and had been wet-nursed in the past.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: Rubbish. Will the hon. Member direct me to words which I used which would convey that meaning?

Mr. Daines: That was the general impression which the hon. Member made on my mind. If my mind is somewhat limited, be that as it may; I am not complaining. Hon. Members opposite called out "Rubbish." If they think they have a contribution to make to the debate, no doubt they will have the opportunity of demonstrating in their speeches how much they know about rubbish.
It is quite clear from the speeches which have already been made from the benches opposite what general line will be followed. I find it extremely interesting that we are not to have the privilege of a speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. We are, indeed, having some extraordinary Ministerial shifting in this Chamber. We had flying visits from the Ministry of Civil Aviation on all difficult and highly technical points on the Finance Bill. Today, when we are dealing with food in a world setting, it is interesting to know that we shall not have the privilege of hearing from the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. I see one connection between him and food.

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: On a point of order. The hon. Member has just said that we are dealing only with food today. That is certainly not my impression. I understood that the debate would be very much wider.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The debate will be very much wider than that.

Mr. Daines: I am very sorry that I am not making myself as clear as I usually do. I definitely said—and I think it was in the hearing of the Committee—that we are dealing with the question of food within the world economic setting. I was going on to say that it would be right and proper that we should have the advice of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. I certainly feel that there is some connection between him and food, because I remember the way he used to scuttle in and out of the Chamber, like a frightened rabbit, while the Finance Bill was being debated.
If we had a speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is looking very carefully at the gallery opposite him—I hope he will turn his rather mournful countenance upon me—I am sure that he would come out with the alibi which we have heard so often, that the real question is the balance of payments—"If I had the dollars then we could get the food." I understand that Lord Woolton's alibi for the red meat situation is, "The red meat is in the United States all right, but we have not got the dollars to get it out."
I agree that the balance of payments is a crucial, vital and fundamental problem, but it is not some abstract matter between Government and Government. The balance of payments is a living reality to millions of working-class households every Thursday and Friday. The question is, "What have we got to do without in order that we can get enough money to pay the food bills"?
I can see quite clearly that one of the claims of the Government will be realised before we are much older. If they stay in office two or three years undoubtedly they will carry out one promise and abolish rationing. Already we are well on the way to the abolition of rationing by legalised controls and ration books and the substitution of rationing by price. One has only to do the weekly shopping, which is something that I have done for many years, to notice very clearly in any shop where working people go that the bacon ration is not being taken up and the best lots are going to the people with the higher salaries.
An hon. Member who addressed us earlier showed a very close understanding of the meat trade. I should like to quote from the President of the National Federation of Meat Traders, who was reported in the "Daily Telegraph" of 10th July as follows:
The ration may be up to Is. 10d. in August. When this happens the ration will be as much as people can afford to buy.
[HON. MEMBERS: "10th July?"] Yes. 10th July. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which year?"] This year, of course. [Laughter.] I am sorry, I should have said 10th June. I do not understand the cause of the hilarity. There is nothing very funny when, as one hon. Member said, the working people who cannot buy the best cuts always have to take the scrag

and the other bits. There is nothing funny in the fact that we are going to have meat rationing by price.

Mr. Osborne: The hilarity was caused not by what the hon. Member said but by his insistence that his quotation was dated 10th July, which has not yet arrived, and when he was told that 10th July had not arrived he still maintained that it was 10th July.

Mr. Daines: I am obliged. I confess that it is one of my idiosyncrasies that I refuse to wear my National Health spectacles to see my figures properly. I will try to avoid that error in the future. As we are repeatedly told, we see increasing prices spreading all around us. What is extremely significant is the fact that we are debating a food situation in the middle of what I think has so far been a particularly pleasant summer, so far as the weather is concerned.
The greengrocers' shops today are full up with a variety of fruit, or as full as I can recollect for the last six or seven years. The price of tomatoes is down. There is such a large influx of soft fruit into the shops that many other products are rapidly coming down in price, but it is going to be a very different situation when the grim days of November come. It is clear from the policy that is being pursued and the way that prices are rising that we are in for a grim period as the months advance.
The Financial Secretary, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), called attention to one significant fact that is occurring in the price changes, namely, that 75 per cent. of the increase in the index figure is accounted for by the rise in prices of food. It is all very well to suggest, as one hon. Member opposite did, that we should take a full view of the question of price increases. The general implication in speeches by hon. Members opposite is that it is true that we have had some increase in the price of food, but that this has been compensated by a drop in the price of textiles and clothes. That is only partly true. The comparison with textile and clothing prices is always made against the peak following the Korean war. By comparison with 1947 prices, there is still a substantial increase in the price of textiles.
Today we are having a battle of statistics. I do not know how far I dare venture on this matter, but I think that perhaps my statistics are as good as those of the Government or, indeed, of most hon. Members. What I think is perfectly clear to any objective-minded observer is that, taking the last six months of the Labour Government against the first six months of the Tory Government, there has been a marked decline in the standard of living of the mass of the people. This is perfectly clear, and I will try to show it by figures which I have verified.
Taking the period May to November, 1951—that is during the period of the Labour Government—wages for all workers rose from 118 to 126, that is, by 8 points. The price of food rose by 8.1 points, but the cost of living of all items rose by 5 points. That means in actual terms of the standard of life, taking the whole picture, that the position of the wage-earning classes improved, if not substantially, certainly slightly. Under the Tories we find that food prices in the first six months rose by 12.2 points, while wages rose only by 2 points. This is not the whole story.
I have a considerable sympathy with one hon. Member who interjected this afternoon and said that we cannot feed people on indexes. But indexes in the shape of all these statistics are only a mirror reflecting the position, and reflecting it rather feebly. We have today nearly half a million unemployed. I am not going to put all the blame upon the present Government for that. We have gross under-employment right through many industries.
What is extremely significant is that we have a substantial, marked decrease in the small savings of the people in this country. I find that during the five months starting at the beginning of the year, the net decrease in share capital of the Co-operative movement is £5¼ million. It is exactly the same with National Savings, and with the building society movement. We are seeing the barometer of the standard of life, as reflected from the standpoint of savings, showing perfectly plainly and clearly that, because the ordinary people have to pay more for food, they cannot save and they cannot afford to buy many of the so-called luxuries of the past.
Earlier the Minister of Food made great play about the amount of money that the workers spend on beer and tobacco, and let us remember that. By any definition, the workers represent nine out of any 10 of the population. Certainly the impression which he made on my mind was that they had no right to have beer or tobacco.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member said that the Co-operative share capital had dropped by £5¼ million. I should like to know the amount which has been reduced by £5¼ million.

Mr. Daines: I am sorry, but I have not got that figure. I will give it to the hon. Member later. I cannot give it proportionately to the total share capital. I did not arm myself with that figure. But I can say that it is a complete reversal of the position that we had about 18 months ago. It is true that there has been a decline, but the rate of decline is very marked and substantial during the six months since the Government came into power.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I should like to ask the hon. Member a question about the figures he gave in relation to the rise in food prices during the last six months of the Labour Government and the first six months of this Government. Will he tell us from where he got those figures? They do not square with the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

Mr. Daines: I will give the hon. Gentleman that information in due course. If I have quoted my figures wrongly, I shall certainly correct them.
We come to the simple fact that the alibi which the Government are trying to adduce today, in connection with the lack of dollars, is no real alibi at all. I cannot remember any kindness from Members of the present Government when they were in opposition and when we were faced with exactly the same position. How tawdry do Tory election promises look today. As I listen to hon. Members opposite this afternoon, I can picture the days when we had literally thousands of posters all over the country which read: "The Tories will fight the rising cost of living." Any proper examination of what has happened shows quite clearly that the present Government


have consciously and deliberately willed the present increase in the cost of living.
We have had the rise in the Bank rate, with all its consequences. We have had an increase in the interest charges in connection with house purchase, and the difficulty, which I have already mentioned and which is so patent, as far as unemployment is concerned. I have noticed that during the last two or three weeks the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, let me say, is one of the most able members of the present Administration; I am speaking only for myself—has found it necessary to meet the T.U.C. twice. I can well imagine that, despite all the work which the right hon. Gentleman has done in the social services, he does find it rather strange to meet the T.U.C.
But the trade union movement of today is very different from what it was in pre-war days, when we had the old set-up of continual Tory Governments. The trade union movement today is conscious of its power and it knows how to use and deploy that power. It is deeply conscious of the duty it owes to the State. To slash the food subsidies by £160 million does seem to me to be an extremely strange way of getting to grips with the problem that the trade union movement has to face. We have only to have two substantial wage increases—that of the miners and of the railwaymen—for the whole of the saving on the food subsidies to be swept completely out of the window.
I believe in food subsidies. I should like to make that perfectly plain and affirmative. I cannot see anything wrong, in principle, with food subsidies. We employ the method of subsidy in the case of the Health Service. We employ it in the case of housing and education. After all, what is it? It is also represented by family allowances and the social insurance system. It is merely an economic device for spreading out the product of the country, and if it is logical and socially desirable that we should spend many millions of pounds—I think it runs into hundreds of millions—in curing disease, it seems to me to be perfectly logical and only common sense that we should use the device of food subsidies to maintain minimum standards of nutrition in order to keep the people healthy.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: The hon. Gentleman asked what we found wrong with food subsidies. I am not trying to make a party point, but I should like to ask the hon. Member whether, as a good Socialist, he would not agree that it is utterly wrong to subsidise a man with £2,000 a year to exactly the same extent as a man earning £4 10s. a week. That is what I consider to be wrong with food subsidies.

Mr. Daines: The hon. and gallant Member is referring to a rather wider picture. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave food subsidies a heavy slash; but it is also true that the millionaire has had a very substantial change in his Income Tax position which more than compensates for it, and I am entitled to draw the conclusion that the two things are connected.
There is really no difference in principle between food subsidies and the Health Service. It is exactly the same with education and with social insurance. The poor millionaire, who seems to worry the hon. and gallant Member such a lot, has to pay in any case for his old-age pension or unemployment insurance if he is in the employed category. We have gone too far along the road of that principle to get unduly worried about it.
I claim that when we examine in detail, point by point, the various economic enactments of the present Government, time after time they have had a direct effect in increasing the cost of living. We have had increases under the Health Scheme, as referred to by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). We have had the increase in the petrol tax. In the Co-operative movement an assessment has been made of the cost of that increase and it is estimated that it adds at least half a million pounds to the total transport cost of the Co-operative movement in one year.
I do not want to be unfair. On the different occasions when I have spoken and thought about this subject, I have tried to analyse what is really the objective behind the policy which the Government have pursued. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have seen that the trade union movement was bound to react with a wholesale demand for wage increases? We all know that if


substantial wage increases are given they are going to be reflected in the prices of commodities and particularly of exports. Why did the Chancellor do it? What is the conclusion which one must draw from the food policy that has been pursued? I am driven to the conclusion that the policy of increasing the price of food is a deliberate one and has been used as part of the scheme for limiting imports of food.
I have always affirmed that when we had a Tory Government they would be compelled by the force of circumstances, and in order to try to save what they could of the system in which they believe—and which is passing—and the power, which they are losing, to try to get back to something like the policy they tried to follow before the war. I think they are following this policy of depressing the standards of life, not out of cussedness but because they know that if their class is to get back to the position where power is based upon economic wealth they have to take a much larger slice of the cake than they had under Labour Governments.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Daines: Hon. Members must restrain their impatience because I have another two sentences to utter. I also believe that the Government see clearly that the only way they can hold in check the economic power of the worker is by the continuance in this country of a policy which will land us into a substantial margin of unemployment. I say to the work-people of this country, from this Committee: You can be very brave when there are more jobs than there are men, but when the position is reversed, then the worker has not the economic power which is necessary to maintain his position.
I do not believe the food policy of the Government is merely muddle. I do not believe it is purely dither. I believe this is part of the last attempt by the capitalist classes of this country, who see power passing from them, to follow a policy which can maintain the remnant of their power as long as possible.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) very far in his argument, and certainly not to

deal with the last part of it, but I congratulate him on one thing: he is the first speaker on that side of the Committee to mention the cost of living in any detail. The other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have avoided it altogether.
I want to deal with the question of people not taking up their meat ration. Like some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I live on the edge of a mixed mining and agricultural village. I have constant opportunities to talk to the miners, as constituents of mine, and although we are diametrically opposed in our political views, we are very good friends on other subjects. I have made it my business to ask the butchers and grocers of my village whether people are taking up their meat ration or not, and I am told that practically all the people are still taking up their ration.
In any case, the point made on this subject by hon. Members opposite is not valid, because if they go back to the records of November, 1940, they will find that three people out of 10 did not take up their meat ration and four out of 10 did not take up their bacon ration. The hon. Member for East Ham, North also made a point about the Petrol Duty, but I think he forgets the purpose of that increase. It was to reduce the consumption of petrol as an alternative to the objectionable system of rationing.
From the point of view of the Opposition, obviously it is a pity that the latest retail price index shows no rise on the previous month. If they have lost a transitory party political point, I am sure the consuming public as a whole are thankful. The Opposition are trying to base this debate on two false premises. The first is that the rise in the cost of living has taken place mainly since the Conservative Government came into power. The second is that a disparity between the wages index and the cost-of-living index is the result of Tory rule.
It is important, I think, to look at the elements which go into the cost-of-living index. They are food, rent and rates, clothing, fuel and light, household durable goods—that is, furniture, floor coverings, and domestic appliances—miscellaneous goods—that is, soap, soap-less detergents, polishes and cleaning powders, services, fares, and drink and tobacco. The hon. Member for


Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) accused the Government of putting up the fares since they came into power, but the fares were increased by a nationalised transport commission.

Mr. Mellish: And by private undertakings.

Mr. Baker White: I believe this is the first time that the two graphs of the cost-of-living index and the wages index are beginning to get a chance of smoothing out into one, and I remind hon. Members opposite that ever since 1947, when their Government introduced the new index, the index of wages has been slightly behind the cost-of-living index instead of being in front.
Hon. Members may ask what are the indications that the cost-of-living index is beginning to smooth out—and it is beginning to smooth out before we can see the effect upon it of the increased social benefits and the full effect of the reduction in direct taxation. The things which are showing sharp falls in price are household linens, men's and women's clothing, floor coverings, pottery and glass, household cleaning materials, furnishing fabrics, and, to a limited degree, furniture—particularly second-hand furniture—beds and bedding.
I should like to give one or two examples. I make no apology for giving these figures because it is much better that I should give them instead of embarking upon an involved argument which would take much longer. Let us take, first, household linen. A bath towel which cost 19s. 3d. six months ago now costs 14s. 11d. Pillow cases are 2s. cheaper than they were, double cotton sheets which cost £3 5s. 10d. now cost £2 15s. 8d., woollen blankets which cost £5 8s. 9d. now cost £3 19s.
Let us turn to carpets and furnishings. Wilton carpeting, 27 inches wide, which cost £2 5s. a yard now costs £1 9s. 9d. a yard. For curtains, glazed chintz, which was 10s. 6d. a yard four months ago, is now 4s. 11d. I want to emphasise that the prices which I am giving are those prevailing a month ago and they do not take into consideration the further decreases which have been made in the sales this week.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is going down the list of price decreases,

but he knows quite well that people are not buying, and the answer must therefore be that the cost-of-living problem is more acute today than it has ever been.

Mr. Baker White: If the hon. Member will be patient a little longer, I will explain why I believe prices are coming down. Utility tea sets, which were 25s. 9d., are now 18s. 6d. The young couple who are prepared to invest a little money in their home by buying a decent carpet for the front room can now get one for £20, whereas four months ago they would have had to pay £30.
Let us turn to clothing. A man's made-to-measure suit, which four months ago cost £18 15s., now costs £13 15s. I know, because I have just got one. Reductions in clothes off-the-peg amount to sums varying between £5 and 15s. A wool gaberdine raincoat which cost eight guineas before now costs £4 19s. 6d. There are comparable reductions in women's clothing.
Some soaps and cleaning materials are down in price, and we are told that wireless sets of the table variety are to be reduced by one big maker by from four guineas to six guineas a set. Hon. Members may ask what that has to do with the cost-of-living index. Wireless sets happen to be in it. If hon. Members will look at the compilation of the index, they will see, under the heading of appliances, that radio sets come at the top. There are 12,690,000 homes in this country with a wireless set in them—or, rather, there are that many licensed sets, and there may be some others as well.
Why are these reductions taking place? The sharp reduction in the prices of fabrics are due in part to the fact that manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are all cutting the prices of the lower-priced materials to bring them within the new tax-free D scheme limits. This seems to discount the fear which was expressed by hon. Members opposite, when discussing the D scheme, that its effect would be to force up prices for the lower income groups in the community.
Most of these price reductions I have mentioned arise undoubtedly from the operation of the law of supply and demand in a period of sales resistance, because many people over-bought last year when they thought prices were going even higher; and it arises from the desire


of the retailers to clear their stocks of goods before the new fashions come in. To that extent, I agree, they are fortuitous and their effect on the cost of living is fortuitous, but that does not make them any less of a reality—and a welcome reality—to the buying public. I believe that at the present rate of consumption buyers should benefit from these prices for another three or four months.
What will happen then? I think the whole thing will depend on the trend of world commodity prices. I could argue, as an economist, that people should take a close interest in world commodity price trends, but I know perfectly well they do not until translated into terms of retail prices. I believe that world commodity prices are going to come down and that, although some of the prices in this range I have mentioned may rise slightly, the long-term effect on world commodity prices will be such that the fall in the prices of these goods will be permanent, that they will not go up again.
I turn to the question of rents and rates. I am not going to pretend that that item in the cost-of-living index is likely to show any material change, but I do say that the Government are trying to do something which the previous Government never did—get down the cost of building houses. By building the "People's" house it is possible to get 11 houses out of materials uesd for 10 before, and reduce labour costs. The Government have reduced the cost of Government-held timber to builders, and have brought down the price of lead. The free enterprise cement industry has brought down the price of cement by 3s. per ton. I often wonder, if the party opposite had had their way and nationalised the cement industry, what the cost would have been.

Mr. Baldwin: Have one guess.

Mr. Baker White: I hope and believe that in the near future there may be a reduction in the price of paint, which is an important item in house building, but I do say that this Government have done more in six months to get down building costs than the other Government did in six years.
There has been some controversy over this question of drink and tobacco and the index. I am not against people smoking or drinking—I do so myself—but I think that as the items of drink and

tobacco come into the cost-of-living index we must have a sense of realism about them, particularly when we remember that those are the only items on the index we ourselves completely control, for we can cut down our smoking or our drinking if we want to.
In the last financial year the nation spent £1,589 million on alcoholic drink and tobacco, which is a sum of £44 per head per year of the adult population, and if we include the turnover on gambling and the money spent on amusements, that figure becomes £50 per head of the adult population. I make that point only because, as I say, it is the one item in the index over which we have complete control.
So far as fuel and light are concerned, they lie in the hands of State boards, and so does transport, but I hope and believe that it may be possible in the comparatively near future to get down the price of petrol, as I understand that tanker freights are coming down from 185s. to 100s. a ton, which is a reduction of 4½d. a gallon. I hope and believe that the petrol companies, with the great profits they make with their world-wide trade, when this reduction comes about will pass some of it on to the consumer. Motor car tyres, bicycle tyres, motorcycle tyres have come down 7½ per cent. The limited number of people who depend on motor cars for business find that second-hand cars are becoming cheaper.
The whole question is what we are doing about home food production. I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that we must get producer groups, and that sort of thing, going. I wonder whether he has ever heard of the pig clubs which have been going since 1939. I wonder whether he has ever heard of the magnificent work done by Women's Institutes and the W.V.S. in the villages to produce more food.
But what have the Government done? One thing this Government have done is to get 500,000 more acres under tillage cultivation as a result of their first moves with the ploughing-up grants. So far as food production is concerned, I see some hope in imported feedingstuffs. Imported barley which cost the Government £40 a ton last January is £8 a ton below that figure for autumn delivery. If we can


get more home production and more feedingstuffs at less cost, we shall get down production costs. But world food is not cheap. It is not going to be cheap, and it is misleading the nation to pretend it is.
It is useful, but not necessarily conclusive, to compare our food prices with those in other countries—with those of Soviet Russia, for instance, that workers' paradise—

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Who says so?

Mr. Baker White: A small minority of hon. Members opposite who have a deep admiration and affection for that country's methods. I have got the prices from an official list in Pravda, translated into British Weights and currency at the official exchange rate of 11.14 roubles to the £, and here they are. Black bread is 1s. 3d. a lb.; white bread, 2s. 5d. a lb.; butter, 24s. 5d. a lb.; meat, 12s. 2d. a lb.; sugar, 8s. 11d. a lb.; coffee, 40s. 8d. a lb.; milk 2s. 0½d. a pint. These are prices in a complete Socialist State to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and his followers wish to move towards, even if by a different road from that taken by the Kremlin.

Mr. Hobson: Nonsense.

Mr. Baker White: One would have expected that a debate on the cost of living would have been opened for the Opposition by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and one might have expected that it would have been wound up for the Opposition by the former Minister of Food, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb). But it is not so. Perhaps it is not so surprising, after all, because the former Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well why the cost of living has gone up in recent months, and he knows that he would not have stopped it himself. The former Minister of Food has made it perfectly clear that in present world conditions cheap food is an impossibility.
I say only one other thing. I spent this last week-end at Brighton, that lung of London where the industrial

workers and the commercial workers of London go to enjoy themselves. I sat on the two piers, watching those Londoners, and talking to them, and I even visited a house of refreshment with some of them, and I discussed with them this question of the cost of living. Many of them were anxious about it, but I say that the anxiety in their minds can be removed by argument. Many of them did not know of the social benefits coming into play—they had no idea—and I found one person after another repeating the propaganda nonsense put out by the party opposite.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: We have discussed the cost of living mostly in relation to food prices, but the cost of living covers a much wider field and embraces import costs, export costs, the balance of payments, production, wages and prices. Some people determine their cost of living by means of standards they enjoy; other people by necessities we must have; some people determine it by the ordinary position they have to maintain, and other people determine it by the luxury position they have to maintain. Even taking into account all these factors, we nevertheless come back to what is the least common denominator in all this argument, and that is the lower paid worker. It is the standard attained and desired by the lowest paid worker which, in the long run, determines this whole question.
Despite some of the arguments of hon. Members opposite, some of them have agreed, belatedly, although generously, that in view of world prices the cost of living cannot be controlled by any Government, and that some of the difficulties of the Labour Government are still being experienced by the present Government. In view of those factors, we must consider what advances the lower paid worker has made in the last six years; what was his changing social and cultural pattern and his natural aspirations and ambitions.
The complete picture is one of a new social structure throughout the whole life of the country, taking into consideration all aspects of the cost of living. We have to consider education and educational advance, the increased necessities nowadays due to high scholarship grants and fathers having to provide for their


children a more expensive scale of education, sometimes school uniform, and even special tuition—things they never had years ago. Those are all part of the changing social pattern.
The greatest change, though, is reflected in the attitude, development and standard of the female population in the last 20 or 30 years. The greatest single factor of which we have become aware is the great change in the outlook of the ordinary woman towards her standards, her dress, her beauty aids and all the things which go to make up a distinct personality. None of these things were thought of years ago, but today they are accepted facts.
Women in general not only enjoy all these things but, what is more, demand them. That is more so in the United States than anywhere else in the world. All that is part of the changing social pattern, but none of those things is included in the cost-of-living index, which workers generally, and trade unions on their behalf, have always felt should be included. These things cannot be denied. Women have their place in the world and in our community. They have advanced, and intend to advance further.
In the last analysis we are entirely dependent on production, on the primary producer, whether in the field, factory or workshop. In the long-run it is on those workers upon whom the general standards which everybody will enjoy depends. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) referred in some detail to factors which he thought affected the cost of living. They do, but not to the extent that he thinks.
Linen, carpets and tea sets, to which he referred, are all contained in the cost-of-living index and have a general effect on the cost of living, but only on a diminishing basis, because the ordinary workman cannot continue purchasing linen, carpets and tea sets. The ordinary workman may purchase a carpet once every 10 or 11 years; in a working-class house a tea set will last a lifetime; and the average housewife will, on her marriage, stock up with linen which will last six or eight years. The reduction in prices of those items is due in part to the diminishing demand caused by unemployment.

Mr. Nabarro: I can claim to speak for the carpet industry, which is centred almost entirely in Kidderminster. The three reductions in prices in the last 18 months have been due to the fall in the prices of essential ingredient materials, and have been nothing at all to do with diminishing demands.

Mr. Tomney: The price of wool has dropped 1s. 6d. a lb. in the last nine months, but the general demand has been reduced because of lack of purchasing power, higher prices and greater unemployment.

Mr. Nabarro: That is quite wrong.

Mr. Tomney: I must now return to the subject of food, which is the most important feature of this debate. It is on this question that the housewife determines with what frequency and for how much she asks her husband for an increase in the weekly Friday outgoings. The housewife is finding it increasingly difficult, due to rising prices, to buy a variety of food to supply that varied diet which makes for an adequate and nutritious standard of living. For example, today many women cannot afford to buy fruit from the local greengrocer. Other items as well have risen in price.
In addition, hon. Members opposite have admitted that for many years to come it will be difficult to supply the food needed, because there is a diminishing agriculture force in every country in the world. In those circumstances it is no longer ethical or just to expect to have cheap food at the prices for which we got it in the 1920s. It would be wrong of us to expect it.
In view of all those factors it is essential, no matter what party is in power, for the Government to adopt a policy of bulk purchase, or State purchase, or international contracts to ensure that our people, who can never feed themselves, are adequately fed. There is no other way of doing it. Any other method will send up the prices of food. That has been proved time and time again. The contracts now in operation are more beneficial to this country than the contracts negotiated by private buyers. The higher food prices in other countries are a justification of the policy we have been outlining and have put into operation. We negotiated on a world basis, and I warn the Government that any interference


with that policy will lead to a shortage of food in this country, and to higher prices which will send the food supplies under the counter so that only those with the largest purses will be the buyers.
The trade union difficulties have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), and I shall not pursue them. While the demands of railwaymen, miners, and others provide a general basis for examining this problem, it is best to look at the position as it affects men generally in trades. We find on examination of trades on an individual basis that the wage increases asked for are perfectly justified.
I referred, in my opening remarks, to the effect of the cost-of-living index on the public. Modifications have taken place, but I am still of the opinion that further modifications are overdue. The original index figure for food was 348, now modified to 399; rent and rates, 88, now modified to 72. That is completely wrong, it is essential to take into account that estates are being built, in almost every case, outside the existing towns, and the increase in the cost of travel in getting to and from work automatically means an increase in the cost of living of the worker. People have no control over these factors. They have to go where the houses are being built.
For clothing, the original index figure was 97, modified to 98; fuel and light 65, modified to 66. I think that is also wrong. I could go through a whole list of prices, and I think that, by and large, the values in the modified new form do not cater for the increases which are taking place in the cost of living from day to day, in such things as canned ham, coffee essence, sardines, ice cream, canned fruit and vegetables.
It has been said by an hon. Member opposite that prices were too low and wages were too high. The gap has been narrowed between prices and wages, but wages are still lagging behind to the extent of about five points. It has not been possible to determine accurately what effects further price increases will have. In regard to the decision on wage negotiations, one thing we can say is that the T.U.C. will, in view of all its responsibilities, have the greatest difficulty in maintaining and restraining legitimate

wage increases throughout the whole field of industry in order to recoup the cost-of-living index in favour of the worker. It is not only in food that he feels the draught. If we take the whole range of prices which have risen lately we can include electricity, gas, letter postage and tyres, and further increases in prices are yet to come. There is every indication that the 1953 harvest will mean increases in the price of wheat by 1s. 3d. a cwt., barley 1 s. 6d. a cwt., oats 1s. a cwt., rye 3s. a cwt., sugar beet 4s. 6d. a ton, potatoes 5s. a ton and milk 1.45d. a gallon.
It is suggested in some quarters that it will be possible to recoup these prices over a long period by the fall in prices of raw materials. There is certainly a fall in the prices of raw materials throughout the world in certain commodities, but I think it will be many years before we can hope that the fall in prices of raw materials will have any beneficial effect upon the cost of living.
There has been a fall in price in certain categories of copper, fertilisers have been reduced by 15s. a ton, jute by about £50 a ton, sulphur by about 7 per cent., sulphuric acid by about 7 per cent. and tungsten by 35s. a long ton unit. All these reductions are effective from 1st April, but all of them, and many more, if there is a fall in world raw materials prices, will not be reflected in the ordinary standard of living of the people of this country for many years, if we take into account the ordinary outgoings of the average householder not only in matters of rent, rates, cigarettes and tobacco, but also such items as bicycle tyres, timber, and gardening tools, which have all become necessary to a higher standard of living.
It is not the intention of the workers of this country to go back to the days which they formerly knew and to accept a reduced standard of living once more. The purpose of life is to increase one's standards and to try to do the best for oneself and one's family. There is a growing realisation of that throughout the world. There is an awakening conscience throughout the whole of the working class that they are entitled to enjoy the benefits of a higher standard and a happier life. They are prepared to work for that standard given the right leadership and guidance. It will not be done by indiscriminately raising or lowering


prices which are going to affect drastically their weekly wage packets.
The Government have produced no formula for stabilising and retarding the cost of living. Long-term promises may or may not materialise. I ask them to consider, before the cost-of-living index rises much further, whether it would not be better to revert even more stringently to the policies we carried through and outlined from 1945 onwards.
Once we arrive at the position where rationing is no longer controlled by the ration book and we are rationed in effect by prices, we have arrived at a position in which the poorest paid wage earner and his wife and family are going to suffer most. That is what is happening today. It may not be happening in Canterbury, where there is a rich population, but it is certainly happening in parts of Lancashire and London. Once that becomes the accepted standard, and there is a rise in unemployment to go with it, it means that the Government will be faced with very considerable industrial disturbances.
I beg of them to watch the position very carefully, to take stock of just where prices are going, and to remember that the average wage does not cater for rising prices. People in that range have received no benefits from reduced taxation because they did not pay Income Tax in the first place, and so they have received no benefit whatever. If the Government make a serious attempt to understand the position, like some hon. Members have done today, to realising that world prices are not controlled by what we do here, and make an attempt to create lower prices, they will have the goodwill and backing, generally speaking, of the trade unions of this country.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I hope the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) will forgive me if I do not follow him closely in his reasoning. I agreed with a good deal of what he said at the end of his speech.
The most important question which has been asked in the debate was that by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). He asked what is to happen now that the trade unions are demanding £300 million extra in wages. That is the most important economic question facing the country. The answer

is that if those wages are paid for the same amount of work and the same amount of production our costs must go up proportionately, it will be more difficult for us to sell our goods abroad, and in turn our food prices will rise and we shall have mass unemployment.
I want to give hon. Members opposite the answer in the words of someone else. The question was answered in anticipation by the late Sir Stafford Cripps at the Edinburgh Labour Party rally on 7th February, 1948. He said:
… the one certain way to destroy full employment"—
I would point out, in passing, to hon. Members opposite that they are totally mistaken if they think that hon. Members on this side want to create unemployment. That is the last thing we want to do. [Laughter.] I am surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) laughing at that.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Member need not be at all surprised. I lived for 20 years in South Wales under a Tory Government.

Mr. Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman need not think that no one else is interested in employment for the workers. Sir Stafford Cripps said:
… the one certain way to destroy full employment and to bring back insecurity of unemployment is to embark now upon an inflationary spiral which will make it impossible for us to get the raw materials we need for our industries. We shall be faced with the terrible alternative of less food or less raw materials, because we cannot export enough to pay for both.
If hon. Members will not believe the sincerity of those of us who sit on this side, I am sure that they will at least accept that from the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
The greatest disservice which hon. Members opposite have done, perhaps unwittingly, to their own followers and the nation as a whole is to give the impression that somehow the nation can have its food at less than it costs to produce it. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) was against that general impression, for she, as a miner's daughter and as one who represents a mining constituency and understands the position, said that in the olden days coal was sold too cheaply and we could not afford to pay the miner a decent wage.
We all know that is true, but the same truth applies to the production of food. If it is unfair and socially wrong to expect cheap coal at the expense of the miners' wages, it is equally wrong and socially unjust to the farm worker to demand that we have our food at the expense of his labour. We must face up to it that both at home and abroad the nation must ultimately pay for its food the real cost of producing the food.

Mr. Mellish: Why did not the hon. Gentleman put those arguments forward when his party were in Opposition?

Mr. Osborne: If I had an opportunity to produce my Press cuttings and my HANSARD cuttings, the hon. Gentleman would see that I put forward those arguments many times during the 1945–50 Parliament.
We are faced with the grave problem that over a period of many years the nation has come to expect cheap food as a right. The day of cheap food has gone, no matter what party is in power, and it has gone for ever. The economic position of the country is so grave—it will affect all our pockets and all our stomachs—that the people outside are rather tired and a little nauseated at our sitting up all night bickering about matters that really do not count when we ought to be giving our attention to solving the grave economic problem which faces us.
I want to make four points about the food position. I am sure that I shall carry with me the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) because he was formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food and at least knows something about it. First, of all the food we consume 55 per cent. is produced at home. The National Union of Agricultural Workers is asking for an increase in the basic wage from £5 10s. to £7. If that increase is granted, the food the agricultural workers produce will cost us more. Hon. Members may say that some of the increase can come from the profits of the bigger farmers. Perhaps some can—I am not going to argue that—but, if it does, the profits made by the bigger and wealthier farmers will be reduced and the Treasury will receive less from them in taxation.
What would be the position if we could increase our home production of food to

65 per cent. of the total consumed? I believe it could be done, and in that direction lies our greatest hope of salvation. I do not believe that we shall ever be able to buy abroad all the food we used to buy in the past and we must recognise that the amount produced at home will cost us more if the agricultural worker is to have the wage for which he is asking. Ought not the agricultural worker to have an increase when his basic wage is £5 10s. compared with the average wage of the miner of £11 10s.? If the agricultural worker has an increase, then we must pay more for our food.
The second point is that there are smaller food surpluses in the world. The basic reason is that countries all over the world are turning from agriculture to industry. Not only are they producing less food in consequence, but they have also a great deal less food to sell because they are keeping more food for their own industrial workers. The Argentine has probably been industrialising itself more rapidly than any other nation since the end of the war. What are the consequences? Last year we obtained from her less than one-fifth of the beef we had from her before the war. We shall never again get from the Argentine meat in the quantities that we need.
The position in Australia is very much the same. It is no good hon. Members opposite thinking that their party politics will alter the international situation. Australia is likely to become a net importer of food. She is going into the New Zealand market to buy those very surpluses which ought to come here. It is no good hon. Members opposite showing surprise. In Australia the drought has lasted for 18 months and three parts of the country's cattle are in danger. It is obvious that we shall not get the meat from that Dominion that once we did. Furthermore, it is important that the Committee and the nation should realise the stark realities of the situation. While hon. Members opposite say that some of my hon. Friends got votes under false pretences, it is twice as dishonourable for them to go and do it again, which they want to do now.
My third example concerns rice. The great rice bowl of Indo-China and Burma before the war produced 5¾ million tons for export, but last year the production was down to one million tons. The population there is growing rapidly, and we


must realise that the food is not available. Whether we like it or not, there are more people wanting to buy the diminishing surpluses that are available.
Not only has the world population increased by 25 million a year, but since 1938 our own population has increased by about three million. Of those, one million are children; and two million are pensioners. Neither group is in a position to fend for themselves. Therefore, if we are going to help those people, the stronger groups in between will have to do something extra to maintain themselves and these other people. I commend this fact to hon. Members the next time they go on to the platform to do electioneering.

Mr. Barnett Janner: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) must resume his seat.

Mr. Osborne: On that point, I do not think the hon. Member has been in the Committee for more than a few minutes, while some of us have been here the whole of the time.
I come to what is probably the kernel of my third point—that it is not realised in this country that we, as compared with the bulk of mankind, are seven or eight times better off. According to the United Nations statistics, 64 per cent. of the world's population are living at one-eighth of our standard. Our income per capita for 1949 was 774 dollars, whereas for the 64 per cent. it was less than 100 dollars a year.
A group of hon. Members opposite have just published a pamphlet stating that this country should put its resources into a pool to raise the standard of life of the coloured people. That is a fine, magnificent ideal, but it is going to cost us £400 million a year to do it. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly to go down to South Wales and say to the miners there, "That £400 million represents about 33⅓ per cent. of your rations. Are you prepared to give them up in the interest of the under-developed portions of the world?"

Mr. Jack Jones: They will do it.

Mr. Osborne: There is not one who will do it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am prepared to go to my people in South Wales and tell them that unless the great Western nations of the world pool their resources in an effort to raise the standard of living in Asia, Africa and other backward countries, there is no hope for a decent world.

Mr. Osborne: That is a wriggle am not prepared to accept. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to go to his people and say to them that they must accept a reduction of one-third of their rations now. Of course, he is not.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not know about this one-third or this £400 million. I have read it in a pamphlet which I commend hon. Members opposite to read, but to which I am not committed in detail. What I have said, quite clearly, is that the people of this country have too long lived on cheap food at the expense of cheap peasants, and they want a higher standard of life. To help them we may have to make sacrifices.

Mr. Osborne: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The last thing I want to do is to misrepresent him, but we must realise that hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about our rations being cut and costs going up, and yet, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman wants to support a scheme for decreasing our rations further. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am addressing the right hon. Gentleman. What he is suggesting would immensely decrease our rations and put up prices. While things are said about my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, there is not the courage among hon. Members opposite to put those facts in front of their people.

Mr. G. Jeger: I am sure the hon. Member does not want to misrepresent the case in the pamphlet or the general philosophy which we on this side of the Committee hold. Can he say whether he agrees that the contribution that would be most valuable to these under-developed backward nations would not be to send them our rations in food, but to send them tractors, agricultural implements, fertilisers and those mechanised resources which would enable them to grow their own rations and eventually to contribute to ours from their surpluses?

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member is taking me from my point, but I will seek to answer him. At the present time the first lot of crawler tractors, which are wanted all over the world, are about to be shipped to Australia. If we sent those first lot of crawler tractors to the underdeveloped parts of the world, we should get no return for them. We are going to get a return from Australia and New Zealand in terms of food, which otherwise we would have to do without. Therefore, if we followed the hon. Gentleman's suggestion it would represent an immediate cut in our rations. I am glad to see the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock back in her place, because she has the courage to face unpleasant realities, which her colleagues have not. She will agree that if we are going to help the people in the under-developed countries it will cost us something, and we should have the political courage to tell our people so.
My last point—and I am sorry that I have been so long—is that we should make clear to our people that, despite these other factors, the United Kingdom today is not in a position to buy the surpluses that are offered. Therefore, unless we can purchase those surpluses that are offered, no matter what Government are in power, our standard of life will go down. What I think we ought to do is to go to the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is one here who is not afraid to go to the country. I am not afraid. Hon. Members opposite may get a greater shock than they expect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try it."] Hon. Members opposite are so queer, and they have such short memories. We were saying exactly this to them a year ago, and their answers were just as stupid as they are today.
My last point is the most serious of all. We are not in a position to buy the 45 per cent. of our food which we ought to buy abroad, and we are never likely to be able to do it unless there is a new attitude in this country towards work.

Mrs. Braddock: By whom? It is always the workers the hon. Member is having a go at, and never those at the top.

Mr. Osborne: A previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay),

said in an earlier speech, when he was giving us an important set of factors—and I beg hon. Members to bear his figures in mind—that before 1914 the essential food imports to this country cost us only £50 million above our foreign investment income. In 1939, they cost us £200 million above the foreign investment income, and last year the comparable figure was £900 million. That means that since I was a boy, say 40 years ago, food imports have gone up until they cost us 18 times as much and for exports, allowing for the fall in the value of money, about 6 times as much.

Mr. M. Follick: What about the increase in population?

Mr. Osborne: Oh, for goodness sake be quiet. If we are to import the foods that are necessary, we have to export a great deal more. I will give only one figure, which is of great importance and which we all ought to bring home to those whom we represent. Since 1938 the terms of trade have gone against us by about 33 per cent., which means that we have to export four articles for every three in 1938 to get the same amount of food as we had before the war, other things being equal. We talk about shorter working hours and easier times; but whether it is in engineering, shoes or textiles, we now have to make four articles where three would have done in 1938 to get the same amount of foodstuffs.
It is of the most vital importance that we should go to our people and, at least for a while, give narrow party politics a rest while we explain to them the dangers of our economic position. It is our duty to set out these difficult supply conditions, which are world conditions and which we, as parties, cannot affect. Until our people realise what we are up against we shall never get from them the effort that is required even to maintain our standard of living.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I shall not endeavour to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), save to say that I feel very sorry for him personally. I always understood in the last Parliament that it was the Labour Government that made him so gloomy, but he is now gloomier than ever. I make this invitation to him seriously. I invite him to


come to my constituency, and if he will only repeat there what he has said today nothing could be more embarrassing to his political colleagues who have spoken and will speak again in my constituency.
What shocks us about the present Government is the speed with which they are setting out to reverse the policy of fair shares which the Labour Government instituted. I will only say, about the general background as shown by the indices, that I asked the Minister to include the November figures because they are the figures as the cost of living stood on 13th November. The month runs back to the middle of October, so obviously that figure should be included. If it is included we find—if we compare like with like and not, as the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary did the other day, compare the increase in the three months of this year with the increase for six months of the Labour Government, but compare either the previous six months of the Labour Government or the corresponding six months of last year—that it is clear that the cost of living has increased rather more steeply under the present Government than it did under the last Government.
But there are these differences. This is rather a favourable moment for the Government to choose. We have had the increase in the cost of tea and meat and the seven increases against which we prayed last week. These are not shown on the published figures. We all know therefore—the Minister knows—that there is going to be a sharp increase this month and next month. Again there is this difference between the figures we are comparing: There has been a tremendous change in the position of international trade, so far as costs is concerned. There has been a revolutionary change, because the terms of trade are now running in our favour. So far as costs go, the position is that there has been a vital change since when the Labour Government held office.
A further point of difference is this—to touch upon something with which the Minister dealt. If we take the right month and the right six months for comparison, this is what has happened to the cost of living and the wages index: The cost of living has gone up six points and the wages index has gone up three. Under a Tory Government we have got

what we would expect, the cost of living outpacing wages by two to one. We also find, if we take the proper basis of comparison, that the increased price of food has played a much more substantial part in the increased cost of living than it did in the last Government.
The vitally important thing, however, is the difference in the attitude of the Governments towards the rising cost of living. I am trying to be impartial, and I will quote from an impartial source, The United Nations' Economic Bulletin for Europe, which said, dealing with the effect of the Budget upon the people of this country:
 On balance, all families with an annual income below £350, who represent one half of the total number of family incomes, will be worse off. Those with between £350 and £550, which represents about one-third of the total of incomes, generally "break even." The remainder of the population above this level will be substantially better off.
That is what a Tory Government have done.
The Minister of Food, the last time we discussed this matter, justified this position by saying that it brought a greater sense of reality into the economic life of this country. What does that mean? Before the war, malnutrition had become such a well-recognised factor that we had several important and recognised surveys of food standards. The Lloyd figures show that if we take only five broad social groups, that before the war the highest group were consuming twice as much meat, twice as much sugar, and twice as much fats as those in the lowest group, three times as much eggs and fruit and from four to five times as much dairy produce.
The other recognised figures, those of the Crawford-Broadley survey, demonstrate that the difference between the expenditure on food between the highest and the lowest group was not less than 10s. 10d. per head a week. We had a lot of talk in the House in the last Parliament about meat. These figures showed that on meat, bacon and fish alone, those in the highest group spent 2s. 9½d. more per head and got 10 ounces of meat more than those in the lowest group. Those are not relating to extreme differences but only to five broad social groupings in this country.
When I was at the Ministry of Food we also had a food survey. What did it show? That the difference in expenditure between the top and the lowest group on meat, bacon and fish was not 2s. 9½d. but 4½d.; that the difference between the expenditure on food between the top and the lowest group, notwithstanding the fall in the value of money, was not 10s. 10d. but about 3s. We thought that was the right thing to do for the people of this country if, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth says, we want everyone to work as hard as they could.
The Minister of Food and the Chancellor have not only torpedoed all this by slashing the food subsidies, they have exaggerated it by the very way in which they have cut the subsidies. What did they attack first? Bread and flour. And they have saved at the expense of the housewives of this country £48 million. What do the figures of Crawford and Broadley show? That there is only one foodstuff which the lowest group consumes more than the higher group and that is bread and flour. What a lot of nonsense about millionaires having food subsidies.
What did the Chancellor do? He saw Ito it that to recover the £48 million we would make the poorest of the poor make the largest contribution. What followed bread and flour? Tea. It did not need any statistics to tell us that the consumption per head of tea, like bread and flour, is higher amongst those in the lowest income group than in the highest income group because they have not alternative beverages. What does the Minister of Food say about the increase in the prices of tea? I quote the right hon. and gallant Gentleman:
It will enable the trade to buy more expensive teas and it will be those more expensive teas which will in fact be subsidising the cheaper teas. … The higher priced teas are very popular in certain quarters and they will be subsidising the cheaper teas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 1662.]
What a lot of silly nonsense. Nothing could be more untrue. Let us take it by stages. The "certain quarters" are the quarters which are "substantially better off" as a result of the Budget. Fortnum and Masons do not supply people in the East End? Are we living in the old days of Robin Hood with tea merchants attacking the rich to provide cheap tea for the

poor? They will sell at the highest price they can obtain on the market they happen to be selling.
Let us take the position of the next food increase. Having increased the price of bread, flour and tea, the Government increase the price of meat to recoup a further £48 million. Speaking before the price increase, this is what the Minister of Food told the Council of the Institute of Meat:
The public, having been accustomed for the past 12 years to obtaining meat at an artificially low price … might react by reducing demand when the increased meat prices become operative.
That is exactly what has happened. Now I quote what the meat trade said subsequent to the price increases:
To increase the prices of the most expensive cuts by a greater degree than the cheaper cuts was out of balance. In working class districts traders were already having difficulty in selling the highest priced cuts. The new range of prices would create an impossible position in many shops.
What are the meat traders saying? They are saying in effect that the Minister has destroyed fair shares in meat; that now the most expensive cuts and joints are going where they can be sold. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) querying the Minister about this. Well, we in the North-East now will not get the best meat which we have hitherto enjoyed under the ration. The industrial areas will not now be able to afford it, and it will go to the select parts of the country. That is what is happening about meat, and the Minister has organised things so that this will happen.
I will give only one more example. In the previous debate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), to whom we always listen with great respect on questions of food and agriculture because of the authority with which he speaks, in dealing with eggs and looking to the future said:
We want the production of eggs to continue increasing and the price to be decided by supply and demand. We know pretty well what the price would be, because we know the black market price. It is nothing terrible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 1698.]
I am not being unfair to the hon. Gentleman when I say that he is really asking for too much, because he also said that the farmers must have a support price so that they would succeed in any


rase. At present everyone is complaining of the shortage of eggs, although they are more plentiful than before the war. If the supply of eggs were to be determined by the law of supply and demand we would soon, particularly in the present deflationary period, be back to the days which the Lloyd figures revealed, when some people of this country would be getting three times more eggs than other people.
With this background, how hypocritical for the Chancellor to go along to the Trades Union Congress. To quote again from the United Nations Report, it shows that the action of the Minister of Food and of the Chancellor will increase the cost of living in this country by about 7 per cent. and that this will inevitably lead to demands for wage increases. But the Report also says that the recession in certain industries and the general deflationary atmosphere may make the resistance to wage claims greater than before.
The Chancellor knows that. The position at the moment is that in spite of these two adverse factors against increased wage claims we have the present increased wage claims. The unions have seen that the rise in the wage levels has lagged well behind the rise in the cost of living. They are not deterred by the present signs of recession but, in the interests of their members, they are driven to ask for some adjustment. Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intervene now? I have a great respect for the intellectual qualities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I say this with great sincerity—but I have a far greater fear of his political designs and purposes. I have not forgotten that it was the Chancellor who came into the House when other men gave up the task to defend persuasively and persistently the policy of appeasement of a previous Government.

Miss Lee: He would not give a food ship to Spain.

Mr. Willey: What the Chancellor is doing is saying to the unions, "Hold your hand. Delay your claims and I, the Chancellor, will delay the further price increases that are inevitable from my Budget policy." The first question I ask the Chancellor is this: what further price increases will there be? I heard the Budget speech, and this is what the Chancellor said:

This extra cost may well average out at about 1s. 6d. per week per head of population."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1299.]
According to the Financial Secretary the present increases amount to 1s. 2½d. per week per head of the population. Does this mean that the Chancellor is saying to the trade unions, "We have imposed practically the whole of the increase but there is to be another 3½d."? The Chancellor did not delay in imposing the brunt of the increases, but apparently he expects the trade unions to delay because there is 3½d. outstanding. Does it mean, as we on these benches have suspected, that the price increases will be far greater than this?
I heard another figure today. I heard the Minister of Food say that the intention is that the food subsidies will amount to £310 million this year. He has already recouped on the three price increases in flour and bread, tea, and meat £109 million. He has recouped a further few million pounds on milk. That carries him well over the £410 million. There is the £50 million in respect of the farmers' and other increased costs. That does not mean very substantial price in increases, unless we are to have something very different from what we have been told so far, because we have to offset against those increasing food prices what the Minister also said, that the prices of some foodstuffs are falling and that there had been a catastrophic fall in freight rates.
We on these benches have been quite right in saying that the price increases are going to be much steeper than the Chancellor led us to believe, and that he is going to do what I suggested he would do some weeks ago. He is going to delay these increases until late in the year, so that to recoup within the present financial year he has to have very steep increases and so cut into the food subsidy for the following financial year, exactly as he did in the case of bacon and cheese.
But why, just at this moment, should the Chancellor make this appeal to the Trades Union Congress? This is the reason. In spite of the recession, this is disguised at the moment. For a month or two, we will not see any marked absolute increases in unemployment, because this is the period of increased seasonal employment. We must relate


the figure back 12 months, and people at work do not often do that. They regard the position as compared with the situation a week ago.
For a month or two, therefore, on the appearance of things, unemployment will be held, but not if we care to check the figures with those of 12 months ago. When we come to the end of that period, however, unemployment will sharply rise, because instead of being offset by seasonal employment, the figures will be aggravated by the onrush of seasonal unemployment.
Does the Chancellor think that the trade unions are fools? They know this better than he. They know now that the only way in which the Chancellor could make a real appeal to the trade unions is to say to them, however committed he may be, that he is willing to revise his financial policy, that he is sorry for what he has done and is sorry for the upset that it has caused to the economic stability of the country.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are in a dilemma. At the General Election, the Prime Minister and his colleagues repudiated Lord Beaverbrook. They said, although I do not need to repeat it because it has been argued so many times in the House, that they would not in present circumstances touch the food subsidies or the social services. That automatically ruled out any Conservative solution to our economic troubles.
The Government were in a dilemma. They could either renounce their past Tory prejudices, or they could renounce their Election pledges. What they did was to appoint as Chancellor the right hon. Gentleman, who so well had put their case during the disastrous months of appeasement. They thought that he would be able to be a true Tory and yet appear a new Radical, just as in 1938 he had disastrously betrayed the country under an appearance of internationalism and meeting other people's points of view, including Hitler's. One of the purposes that we on these benches have served is to reveal this policy so that people are not fooled, and in their revelation lies the doom of the Government.

8.14 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said—I think I am quoting her fairly—that Labour did not want cheap food or cheap coal but believed in fair prices for these commodities and fair wages. I think that the hon. Lady was speaking for all of us in that.
I want to call attention to the fact that in the cost of almost everything in the world, including food, the cost of wages represents three-quarters of the whole cost. Therefore, when anything goes up in price, it is because, as regards three-quarters of that price, somebody is getting extra wages.

Miss Lee: No.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: Extra profit, the hon. Member means.: Mr. J. A. Sparks (Acton): Extra profit, the hon. Member means.

Miss Lee: The hon. Member quoted very fairly that I made the point that the standard of living was the important thing and that we did not want too cheap foods at its expense. I hope, however, that he does not associate me with his further point. It was only the other evening that we had a most interesting debate on the price of newsprint, and we are continually having reminders of just how much profit goes into those things and into the level of the price.

Sir I. Fraser: I was not taking advantage in any way of what the hon. Lady said. She agrees that I fairly quoted what she said, and I welcomed it. We are at one in that. I like to seek out the things in which we are one rather than to emphasise those in which we are at odds. I cannot help feeling that the people generally would be much more interested in what we can all do together to remedy our position than in the to and fro of blaming each other for this and that in the past.
It remains a general broad fact, although there are exceptions, that three-quarters of the cost of everything is wages. When, therefore, anything goes up in price, broadly speaking three-quarters of the rise is in respect of wages. I agree with the hon. Lady that we want fair prices and fair wages. If, therefore, wages go up, we must pay more for the things that are made by the people getting those wages. There seems to me no way out of that.
For 10 years or more, under two or three Governments we have had inflation. First, it was because of war, and thereafter because of policy, because the Keynes theory has dominated our economic thinking and our economic action. Inflation is a very agreeable thing, like dope and drink, for a great many people; they get used to it, it gets into their blood and they begin to find that they cannot do without it.
Wage earners get more money as inflation proceeds. Salaries become higher, and dividends, in so far as they are paid out on ordinary shares or represent the share of profits in partnerships and so on, also rise as time goes on, though more slowly. All these forms of income rise because they are paid in the new currency, which is depreciated, instead of being paid in terms—

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of order. It shows an amazing disrespect to the Committee, in a food debate, that there not a representative of the Ministry of Food on the Government Front Bench.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Lady sees fit to describe this as a food debate. If she looks at the Votes which the Committee are now discussing, she will see that a number of Departments, including the one which I happen to represent, have their Votes at issue.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: How many Departments are involved, and how many of them are represented by the two Members who are at present on the Government Front Bench?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Colegate): That is not a point of order. Members on the Front Bench decide by their own wishes and on their own grounds whether they attend. They are perfectly entitled to do as they please.

Mr. Sparks: They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a point of order."] On that purported point of order, I should like to have your Ruling, Mr. Colegate, as to whether the hon. Lady is right in describing as a food debate a debate in which a number of Votes other than those of the Ministry of Food are also included in the debate.

Mr. F. Willey: Before you reply to this purported point of order, Mr. Colegate, may I ask why there is no one from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour and National Service on the Government Front Bench, because their Votes are also down for consideration?

Mr. Robert Crouch: Further to that point of order. Is it not the rule in the House that there is an hour on Friday, and this particular hour on other days, when hon. Members are in the dining room and when points of order about attendance are not raised?

The Temporary Chairman: This is a composite Motion which does not concern the cost of food only and there is really no point of order arising.

Sir I. Fraser: I am most grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the intermission they have granted me in my speech. Now, perhaps, I may return to the point I was seeking to address to you, Mr. Colegate.
I was saying that inflation is welcomed by many wage earners and salary earners—or, if it is not welcomed, at least it is tolerable to many because they get compensation by the fact that they are paid and rewarded in the new depreciated currency instead of in terms of the old. But that is not true for a very substantial element of the community which has the misfortune not to be very strongly represented in the House.
There are some millions of people who have no employers' federation, no trade union and no one particularly to represent them or speak for them. They cannot withhold their labour and cannot, therefore, bring their needs so dramatically or so powerfully to the notice of Governments, of whatever party, as can organised groups. This question of the cost of living, whether it be in food, clothes, amenities, or enjoyments, vitally affects them. I rose particularly to say a word for them and for some groups amongst them.
They cannot remedy the position themselves because they are either too old, or too sick, or too disabled to do very much about it by taking thought or by special efforts. They cannot do an extra hour or two a day, or a bit of overtime once a week. They may not be in work at all


because they are disabled and, even if they are in work, they are in that sort of steady job which suits their disability but does not give scope for promotion or harder work. They cannot get greater reward or earn more money by their own efforts. Nevertheless, they are affected more by a higher cost of living than are the other active groups in the community whom I have mentioned.
Their claims on the community vary. They have no right to demand this or that; they can only ask that their neighbours and their friends will help them to sustain a decent life, a comfortable life and, in their old age, a pleasant life. They cannot withhold their labour and bargain with the community. The services they have rendered were in the past. They may have been notable in industry or in war, but they were in the past.
The only source of wealth is the wealth that the people make—the earnings of those by hand and brain—out of the soil, out of the chemicals in the ground, out of all the various skills possessed by men who use their brains and hands. That is the only source of wealth and the total wealth available is only that made by those people. If they have not enough wealth, or the right kind of wealth in their own island, they can exchange some of what they make for some of what others make, but it still remains the fact that the total wealth is only that which the people themselves make and only out of the pool of that wealth can any of us enjoy anything.
Some have claims on this wealth, claims arising from the past—the right to a pension, the right to superannuation. Others have no claims but the claim to consideration from their neighbours. It is my view that in this stage in our life as a community we have to induce in our people a belief in earning more by their own work. We have to discourage all those who do not work and encourage those who do work.

Mrs. Braddock: What happens when they are unemployed?

Sir I. Fraser: We must do the best we can to get them working. I do not wish to be diverted from my argument, which is an earnest and a serious one. Unemployment in this country is a very grave matter, especially in Lancashire, but at

present it is not a serious factor which will invalidate the argument I am putting forward. It is minimal by comparison with that experience in the past, save of course for post-war periods.
The only source of wealth from which all our needs and gratifications can be met is that which the workers make. Since that is limited and cannot quickly be altered, it is clear that we can only divide it up into certain proportions. I think that at this stage the most important thing of all is that we should give to those who make our wealth a little more of the national share. [An HON. MEMBER: "A lot."] I should like to give a lot more, but I believe in the inevitability of gradualness. We must give them a little more and always hold out the encouragement that there will be still a little more and, moreover, that they will be allowed to keep that little more and enjoy it themselves, and choose how they will spend it.
That philosophy seems to me to be the one which will encourage the limited number of people who make our living for us. We must remember, when taking into account children, wives, housekeepers and the old, that, although they bear great burdens of work for us, they do not make our wealth. It is a limited number of men and a few women between the ages of 16 and 60 who, broadly speaking, make the wealth of the community. If we can encourage that group, they will make more wealth for us. I believe that is the only way, in the end, by which to reduce the cost of living; that is why what I am saying is relevant to our debate.
I am not trying to make a party point here, but I do not believe—and I think the last six years have shown it—that price fixing, save in very rare circumstances of great national need, rarely leads to the great surge forward of increased production. I believe that better rewards for the individual are the way. It is because I think that we are approaching this attitude of mind in our present view of life that I think there is some hope that we shall get out of our troubles in the next year or two.
I believe that the wage rises of last November throughout industry generally have not yet found their way into our economy and, therefore, there are still rises in costs to be faced during the rest


of the year. I do not know what view the Cabinet Office statisticians take about this, but I think we are still in the period of inflation and that prices will rise generally, perhaps up to the end of this year.
It is possible, of course, that events in the United States and in the field of foreign affairs may stultify all prophecies, but it is my guess, for what it is worth, that that is what will happen this year and that next year we shall see a fall in prices. It is vitally important that we should continue to pursue a policy which will help to bring that about. Whilst it must be expected that the Opposition will exploit every rise in the cost of every commodity on the political platform—

Mr. Percy Wells: As the party opposite did.

Sir I. Fraser: Yes, as we did during the years before—that is to be expected. But I do not think people will take very much notice, because the General Election will not come for two or three years, and the time for getting fussed and bothered as to who is winning, and who is up and who is down in the Gallup Poll and all that, is not yet. Therefore, it seems to me that we must go on steadily—and this Committee and Parliament may rejoice that we shall go on—with this programme because it will greatly strengthen the position of the next Government, whatever party may be in power.
I have said already that those who cannot work to improve their position are the worst hit. They include the old, the sick and the poor, and also the war pensioners. I make no apology to the Committee for saying a brief word for them. Government statisticians, as well as statisticians at Oxford, London and Cambridge have shown that by the end of this year the basic wage rates in this country will have risen by two and a quarter times. As a previous speaker indicated, the money taken home at the end of the week is very often more than that, unless of course the person is unemployed, in which case it is less.
The pensions paid to a small number of war pensioners have increased by considerable sums—by two and a quarter or two and half times in some cases where their emoluments and allowances have been augmented by the Govern-

ment since the war. But for an overwhelming majority of them a much smaller rise has taken place.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments with which hon. Members on all sides of the Committee are familiar. I want only to remind the Committee that during the year we all ought to consider making adjustments in these pensions to meet the cost of living already registered, and below which I do not think living costs will drop very much. I have said that they will go up this year to the end of the year and then fall next year; but I do not believe they will fall below present levels. At the present levels, the basic war pensions of 1948 of 40s. a week should now be 90s.
I know that the whole national economic position must be taken into account in deciding whether this adjustment can be made or not, and whether it can be made at once or by stages; but it must be made if this debt of honour is to be paid. That is the point I want to leave in the minds of the Committee and of the Government, because this group, along with the old and the sick, cannot remedy their position by their work.
Sir Stafford Cripps fought manfully and courageously to teach our people some of the elements of the economic situation which have been gilded over in loose political thinking for so long. Up to a point he succeeded in teaching some of us on both sides of the Committee the fundamental facts. He tried very hard to stop inflation, but political pressures were too strong for him and he could not succeed. Now the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying, and he has introduced the first Budget that we have had for 10 years which has been designed for the purpose of stopping inflation, possibly creating a measure of deflation, and thereby bringing about a general fall in wages, salaries, dividends and profits and in prices all round.
I said those words advisedly, knowing that wicked men will take them out of their context and use them to their advantage on the political platform. The fall may not be absolute. It may only be relative. It may show itself in terms of a cessation of rising factors rather than falling ones. But there it is. It is the policy, as I see it, of the Government to bring about a better state of affairs for


all by causing a return to a situation in which we are paying our way and living on our earnings. I hope that will go on.
I believe that, given two or three years of steady, courageous progress along that course, we shall find that the cost of living will fall. But if we weaken and pander to the clamour from any quarter to save this or that commodity from rising a penny here or twopence there, hard as the grounds may be for such refusal, then all we shall do will be to return to the policy which in six years has produced this enormous rise in the cost of living.
I therefore plead with hon. Members in all quarters and even with the Opposition, who, as I say, need not get fussed for another two years, to let this fruitful policy go forward, because it will without question contribute very greatly to the better standard of living of our people.

8.37 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very disappointed in this debate. I have been reading the newspapers over the weekend and gathering from the economists who write in such papers as the "Sunday Times" that we were really going to have an exceedingly good debate and that the Government were fully prepared to meet this challenge. Of course, there are economists of different points of view. If we took all the economists in Britain and laid them out end to end, they would all point in different directions.
I read that the Government had a watertight case to present today. After listening to speaker after speaker on the benches opposite, I am forced to the conclusion that there has never been such a sorry performance since that foolhardy individual went over Niagara Falls in a barrel. We have been told that because the Labour Government in one period of months increased the cost of living, therefore hon. Members opposite are to be congratulated for further increasing the cost of living in a given period of months. That is the point of view that they constantly present to us.
For some time, during weekends, I have been meeting housewives at meetings as far north as Inverness and as far south as Salisbury. The housewives tell me—and

it is backed by my own experience—that the Chancellor's statement that the increase in the cost of living worked out at 1s. 6d. a week was absolutely false. Indeed, if one examines the position, the increase has not yet even been placed on all the goods.
I have had budgets submitted to me from Inverness to Warminster. I have been told by people in the north that the increase in the cost of living is £1 a week for a family of five, and in the south a woman has submitted that the increase amounts to 16s. for a family of four. A man has told me that it is 15s. 9d. for a family of four. All housewives are very worried, except those in the Housewives' League, who have been flattened out by an overdose of anaesthetic administered by the Radio Doctor. I wonder how the Radio Doctor would like to broadcast now and explain the position to the housewives. How would he like to give them the explanation that we have heard today from the benches opposite?
Last week I put down a Question asking what was the cost of living arising out of the Budget changes and other changes operating since November, 1951, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave this reply:
… the cost per person per week of the normal ration is about 81d. more today than it was on 1st November, 1951. To this should be added about 6d. for the average increased, expenditure on milk, bread and flour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 201.]
Yet, on the 11th June, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food replied that there were 27 different grocery items which had been increased in price. I think the number is 38; in fact, I am prepared to prove to the hon. Gentleman who was such a good broadcaster that there are 38 items of grocery which have been increased and that the increase to the housewife is not 1s. 6d. per head but 4s.
If we take the first item alone—flour, which bears an increase, on the hon. Gentleman's own showing in HANSARD, of 33 per cent.—it is listed as one item; but if flour is increased by 33 per cent., then rolls, bread, cakes and buns of every description go up in price. It follows naturally in relation to quite a number of the 27 items. To what do we attribute these increases? Hon. Members opposite


today have merely attributed the increases to the Budget changes, which were deliberate. They deliberately increased food prices by taking away the subsidies.
It was a deliberate act of policy. On the same day, 11th June, the Parliamentary Secretary was asked how many of these 27 items on which the prices had risen were those from which the Minister deliberately took price control as soon as the Government came into power. He replied:
It would take a little time to sort them out. They certainly include flour, which is the one responsible for the 33 per cent. figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 207.]
The party opposite increased food prices on rationed goods and they increased prices again by taking away price control. Who was that benefiting? In addition, they were faced with the other reason for food prices increasing—the fact that prices had increased abroad. If hon. Members opposite knew that they were faced with this situation, with food prices still against them, where they would have to pay more for our food, was that not a reason, and an outstanding reason, why controls should still have been retained? In America President Truman retains controls. In France, controls have lately been imposed.
Surely the fact that food prices were steadily rising abroad was one reason for retaining controls and not loosening them, and a reason for retaining subsidies. But hon. Members opposite deliberately took two roads: one took the high road and told the public that food prices were going up by 1s. 6d., and the other took the low road and put the prices up by 2s. 6d. behind people's backs, thinking that they would never discover it. But every housewife knows it, and no wonder husbands have been told that £1 a week more is being spent for a family of five and 16s. for a family of four.
Hon. Members opposite have told us today about how prices have fallen for curtain cloth and drapery. Even carpet prices are falling, but hon. Members opposite do not see the danger, they do not see the course on which they have been steering this ship. It was always understood that when the captain got to the bridge of the ship "Britannia," whether at home or abroad, he would steer her clear of the rocks. This ship "Britannia," with the captain on the

bridge, is not so successful in foreign waters and is certainly making for the rocks domestically.
Unemployment in the textile industry is not caused by the withdrawal of the Australian exports. It is caused by loss of purchasing power among the people of this country. Today is the first day of the sales in London—a day when normally the women would be jostling each other to get hold of the bargains. What has happened? The shops are not selling at all. Even if curtain cloth, which was formerly 8s. 11d., is now marked down to 3s. 11d., it still is not selling.
I stood in Hartlepools the other day looking into the sales at the big shops which had marked down their goods. I never thought I should feel sad to see a fall in prices as I saw them in Manchester a fortnight before. I thought that when prices began to fall every woman would be glad to buy. It is a little sad to see prices one knows are uneconomic being advertised in the windows of the shops of Great Britain and, low as they are, still not attracting buyers.
My hon. Friend has repeated that the United Nations Bulletin says that a half of the population of Great Britain, that is to say, the people with under £350 a year, are worse off since the Budget—are worse off. For the cost of food alone £1 a week per family of five is taken, and that is £1 not being spent on textiles. The curtains can wait. Even if curtain cloth is being sold at the tempting price of 3s. 11½ a yard, even if dress material is down to the low figure of 2s. 11½d. a yard, it has got to wait, because so much of the household income goes to pay for food.
Does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that his dear food policy which he has deliberately created is stifling the purchasing power of a half of our people. It is all right for the sixth part of the population who, the United Nations say, are substantially better off; it is good for them to get the bargains in curtain material, dress cloth, suitings and all the rest, but the people with £7 a week and under are completely unable to buy. It does not matter that carpets can be bought for £12 whereas they were £20 once, all the money going into the house goes to buy food.
That is the policy that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are pursuing.


It is leading—as it has led—to heavy unemployment. It is a policy that means that every wage increase will make it impossible for us to sell our goods abroad; if there are no wage increases it will mean vast unemployment. It was a sorry day that the people of this country returned a Tory Government.

8.53 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I should have liked to follow in some detail the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), but I have not much time. However, I will take up one point with regard to the 1s. 6d. that she mentioned in the Budget. Surely she realises that that 1s. 6d. was specifically set against an increase in the cost of food as a result of the change in the food subsidies. I agree with the hon. Lady that there have been other increases as well, but if she was here—I do not know whether she was—when the Minister of Food made his opening speech, she must remember that he made two points.
One was that there were pending increases which the former Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Food, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) must have known would take place, and were taking place just before the Election, and which the Socialist Government would have had to accept if they had been returned to power. The second was the figure as the result of an increase in the reduction in the food subsidies.

Mrs. Mann: rose—

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Surely the hon. Lady will let me finish my sentence? After all, she has left me very little time, and I am supposed to finish by 9 o'clock. The other figure was one which inevitably would have been imposed even if a Socialist Government got into power.

Mrs. Mann: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that the Labour Government would have taken away controls and allowed the prices of those 27 items to rise?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am talking about the normal price increases which were held back by the Labour Govern-

ment before the Election. Those increases would have had to be imposed whichever party got into power. I really cannot follow that argument any further.
I do not intend to indulge in this statistical ping-pong that has been going on across the Floor of the Committee, except to say that, as one who sometimes watches boxing matches, in my own mind, without having scored the points, I have a feeling that we have won easily, anyhow up till the final round, and I have sufficient respect for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to be confident that he will win the last round.
Today we have been discussing the background to this problem. It is not a new one; it will continue for many years. The standard of living has been rising all over the world, and there is one question I ask of the former Colonial Secretary. Of course, we must do everything in our power to raise the standard of living of people in the backward areas, but until they provide markets for our exports, will our people agree to a lessening of their own standard of living in order to raise the standard of living of those in the backward areas? I think they should, but will they do it?
There is bound to be an interval between the time the £400 million, or whatever it is, is paid out and the time the standard of living of these people increases. It is a perfectly good long-term policy, but our people will have to suffer while it is happening. Are they prepared to do it? Would any hon. Member go to his constituents, miners, textile workers, or anybody else, and tell them that they must give up a certain degree of their standard of living?

Dr. Stross: Many hon. Members on both sides have told their constituents that and have experienced no resistance to it.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am delighted to hear it.
On the question of world prices and bulk buying, I would only point out that we are bound to pay world prices. There is no getting away from that. No other country will subsidise our food for us. What I object to is paying more than world prices. Let us clear our minds on this question of bulk buying. That expression is often used on political platforms, and hon. Members opposite do not seem


to realise what we on this side of the Committee stand for in this respect.
Bulk buying is not objected to as such. [Laughter.] That shows how little hon. Members opposite understand. What we object to—and I shall go on saying this—is buying between Governments, which becomes a political matter. If the buying of meat, or anything else, is handed back to private enterprise, they will buy it in bulk because that is the cheapest way to buy, but buying between Governments sets up all sorts of political reactions.
I have had to scrap a lot of my speech because of the shortness of time, but I should like to say that I took very great exception to one thing the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said in the middle of his speech, which was to justify any wage claims in the next six to eight months. I honestly believe that he cannot possibly be doing the trade union leaders any great service in saying that. He knows perfectly well that they are trying to restrain those demands, and if he, a former Minister, encourages wage claims he will assist the small minority in the trade union movement who want to see the disruption of this country, and who are working for that. I think that was a very dangerous thing for the right hon. Gentleman to say.
We have heard a lot today about the price increases as a result of cutting the food subsidies, and one thing and another, but not one word from hon. Members opposite about what will happen in September when the increased family allowances begin. When hon. Members opposite go to their constituencies for the weekend, do they remind the people that increased family allowances are coming in. increased pensions have been brought in, and the fact that the reduction in P.A.Y.E. has only just taken place for one week?
I think that it is high time that we stopped all party politics in this matter and got down to brass tacks; that we talked about what the situation really is and how we can get over it. I am not speaking on my own subject tonight, but hon. Members will realise that when I was on the other side of the House I always endeavoured to make constructive speeches, and I am trying to do so tonight, without bringing in party politics.
What we want is for every Member of this Committee and for the leaders of

industry and the shop stewards to tell the people what in fact is the situation and what is the truth. For heaven's sake, let us get rid of this class-warfare preaching. I mean that from the depths of my heart, and I dislike the phrase used by an hon. Friend of mine today when he referred to the "two sides of industry." The sooner we get rid of that idea, the better for this country. We want a team working towards one end, in the same way as the British Army threw a bridge over the Rhine in just over 18 hours. That was not done by the officers standing by with whips and flogging them on. They took off their coats and worked with the men. That is what we want today.
However much we may dislike it, I believe that we have ceased to be the middle men of this world, and therefore, having regard to a lot of other things which I should have liked to mention, I think that we cannot continue to support on this island 50 million people. I believe that, whatever Government is in power, it must inaugurate a large-scale emigration scheme, with all overheads, including granny and the children, to the most glorious climates there are in our Empire where there is room for expansion, both strategically and from the economic point of view. That, in the end, will be the solution of our problem, and the sooner it is done the better.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: This debate has been extremely useful. There have been some very fine contributions from this side of the Committee, particularly that by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), and some revealing speeches from the other side, particularly that by the hon. Member who said that food was too cheap. We on this side take the view that the cost of living is a very important factor in the lives of every one of us. We think that it particularly affects the poorer section of the community—the old age pensioners, the disabled and others. We stand for shifting their burden. The party opposite used to accuse us, when we were the Government, of soaking the rich. I think that we can in truth retort that the Government today is protecting the rich. [An HON. MEMBER: "Soaking the poor."]
I have never been one who believed that costs would not rise whatever Government action was taken. The reason is that the primary producing nations of the world are becoming developed. There is a drift from the land. Not so much raw material and food is being produced, and what is being produced is being consumed by the developing countries, and there is less for export. The world population is growing also.
I remember, when I went to the West Indies last year, a leading member of their Government saying, at the end of my tour, "Mr. Bottomley, you have a Welfare State in your country. The people are reasonably well-fed. The children go to school and are well-clothed. We have a few in that very happy position, but the majority are not. We are going to ask you for more money for your food so that you can do for us what we did for you in the past and help to build our country." So we shall find that the cost of living must continue to rise as long as we have to import so much.
We import nearly all our butter, three-quarters of our cheese, sugar and wheat, half our meat and equally high proportions of raw materials. The Conservative Party always blamed the shortages and rising costs on the Labour Government. That was wrong. I do not now wish to complain of the way the Conservative Party used to blame us, but I will say that when we went out of office we left stocks. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that the cupboard was bare. The Chancellor himself has given the lie to that, for in his Budget statement he said the Government would have to draw upon £150 million worth of stores, stockpiled by the previous Government. That has been confirmed by other responsible Ministers and by the Prime Minister himself.
Let us compare that with 1945 when the Labour Government came into office. The cupboard was really bare then. The Americans had been told by the Prime Minister that the country was bankrupt and that any Government which took over would meet the most serious difficulties. I would remind hon. Members opposite that in 1945 we had a points system for jam, cereals, tinned fruit and such things. If one decided to

have tinned fruit one had to go without the other things because too many points were required. If we compare 1945 when the Labour Government took power with 1951 when the Conservatives took power, there is no doubt who were the better off. The present Government were far better off.
Let us see what happened when the Labour Government came into power. The Labour Government did not grumble about these things; it accepted them. We had been through a terrible war. The Labour Government took its coat off and got down to the job. Reference to what had been achieved was made in the national Press in May, 1950, a month before the outbreak of the Korean war. The "Daily Herald" and the "Daily Telegraph" gave a very reasoned survey. The independent Conservative newspaper, the "Daily Express," really went to town. The "Daily Express" came out with banner headlines on 25th May, 1950. It said:
Britain's business is booming. … Never before have so many goods rolled off the production dines in the factories. … Exports are higher than ever before. … Never before have so many people been in work. … Never before have savings been so high. … Agriculture and industry share in the bumper times.
That is what we did after five years of the Labour Government, and we are entitled to take some credit for it.
It would be wrong of me to say that prices had not risen in that time. About that time prices in this country were double what they were pre-war. But what had happened in countries where there was free enterprise, in which the Government believes? In France prices had gone up 18 times and in Italy 50 times. In the vital years 1949–51 when world movements caused rapid increases in prices in Austria prices rose 20 per cent., in France 21 per cent. and in Denmark 16 per cent., while in this country, with a Labour Goverment, they rose 5 per cent. Although we had great difficulties we were not unmindful of our responsibilities to others. At that time we were exporting food to India and Continental countries who were in need.

Mr. Baldwin: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether food subsidies were operating in the countries where prices had risen?

Mr. Bottomley: I was saying that we were sending food to those countries because they were in need. The question of prices did not enter into it at all.
There are two ways of dealing with the problem of the cost of living. One is that pursued by the last Labour Government and the other is that which the present administration are pursuing. What did we do? We strongly supported what the wartime Government had introduced, the Utility scheme, and by that means 70 to 90 per cent. of essential goods carried no Purchase Tax and were up to standard specification. In the matter of maximum price control, the Co-operative societies of this country set a magnificent example. They put their prices below the maximum, but I regret to say that private enterprise did not follow suit.

Mr. Osborne: That is not true.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to generalise, but it is not untrue. When we were the Government we recognised that we had to tackle the cost-of-living problem. Hon. Members opposite can look at their files and they will see papers dealing with price maintenance, monopolies, marketing and distribution. If the Government had given their attention to these things and brought them forward, they might have been able to control the rise in the cost of living.
Then, we believed in food subsidies. Judging by parts of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, and particularly that of the Minister of Food, they favour complete abolition of the food subsidies. The argument was used that food subsidies are given to rich and poor alike. I should like to follow that up and ask whether the Government accept that as a principle. If so, what about the subsidies to the farmers? They are given to rich and poor alike. What about family allowances, which also go to rich and poor alike? Food subsidies are the way in which the poor people get the food they require. It is most important that they should get it, because good food enables them to have good health and we have not to spend money unnecessarily on getting them better. Further, giving them good food ensures that they are able to do better work and increase production.

Mr. Spencer Summers: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is over-

looking the fact that subsidies to the farmers are taxed whereas the food subsidies are not?

Mr. Bottomley: I am coming to that in a moment. As far as the food subsidies go, the answer to the people who are concerned about the rich getting their share is that if those people are feeling squeamish about it they should console themselves in the knowledge that they are paying for it by the Excess Profits Tax and by Income Tax.
Before the removal of the food subsidies prices of essential foods began to rise. Cheese, bacon, biscuits, milk, marmalade and things which the poor people buy—they cannot go in for the delicacies like the richer people can—showed an increase, but the steepest increase of all was that on bread. Tonight I was having a snack in this building and I spoke to one of the ladies who was serving. She told me that she spent 4s. 9d. a day on bread and milk. I do not know what the wages are which are paid here, but that is a pretty good slice out of anyone's weekly income.
Tea is a commodity which the poorer section of the community require. When the Labour Government were in office there were two increases in the price of tea. The first was in January, 1947, when subsidies were running at the rate of £324 million a year and the world prices of tea were rising. The second was in May, 1951, when food subsidies were running at £410 million a year and prices in the world again were rising. We have had an increase in tea recently at a time when subsidies are running at about £250 million a year and world prices are falling.
I read in a paper a week or so ago that roughly 4½d. per head of the expected loss of 1s. 6d., to which the Chancellor has referred, as a result of the removal of the food subsidies, is operating to date. In other words, there is still Is. 1½d. more to come. I think it is more than that, because prices are going up irrespective of the cut in the subsidy rate. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give us an assurance that there will be no increase in food prices until pensions and other increased benefits are given to the people in September.
Another method which the last Government employed and on which the last hon. Member who spoke had some comment to make, was bulk purchase, in


which we believe, although we are not doctrinaire about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, not. In the case of tea we saw that there were very powerful arguments for giving it back to private trade. We gave it back to private trade. The present Government tried to claim credit, but we did it when we were the Administration. Most countries who sell foods now—and this applies particularly to Commonwealth countries—say, "Let us have a long-term contract because it enables our producers to get an economic return." That is probably the only way in which we shall be sure of getting our essential foodstuffs and raw materials in the future.
I was the Secretary for Overseas Trade in the last Government. We did not just send overseas civil servants to do the buying. There were public-spirited businessmen who were prepared to go with the team and use their expert knowledge to get the best deal for the country. When a team went out to bargain about the price for a commodity, we knew that the particular country was short of petrol, or coal or locomotives, for example, and the team were told about these things. By that means we were able to get very good deals.
We could not trust that process to private interests in the same way. Many other countries do not have the same trading standards as ourselves. What would be the position if we sent out a dozen private merchants to Argentina and asked them to bid for meat? They would be bidding one against the other, with the price always going higher, until in due course the maximum price would be paid for the meat. That would be a far more expensive way than we have at the moment. I did this kind of work in the last Government. I should like to read to the Committee what the Economic Survey of the United Nations' Mission for Europe said, as a result of impartial examination in these matters. It is:
On the side of imports, the price advantage was almost exclusively due to the favourable terms that the United Kingdom was able to negotiate under its various bulk-purchase agreements.
I should like to ask a question or two about whether the present Secretary for Overseas Trade is really able to do his work. When I was in the Department,

hardly a week went by when I did not meet some foreign trade leader or commercial representative. I do not complain about the poor Secretary for Overseas Trade; my argument is against the Government themselves. They have had two changes in a very short time.
There are at present trading difficulties with Brazil and Denmark. I would like to know whether the responsible Minister is handling these matters personally, and whether he is carrying on talks at the moment with the Soviet Union, from whom we want the timber and grain which are vital to enable us to keep our economy going. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us something about these matters.
Now I would turn aside and look at family budgets. After all, the family is where the cost of living reflects itself. I have many examples from workers in industry generally, pensioners, and other people who knew I was taking part in this debate and who have sent me statements about their income and how the cost of living presses upon them. I have chosen one example, that of a public employee, an executive officer in the Civil Service. These officers are not poor people and they have reasonable conditions of employment in the Civil Service. They are not subject to the same fluctuations as other workers, and, by the very nature of their work, they are accurate.
This is the budget of a young man of 29, who is married and has one child. He tells me the comparison between October last, when the present Government took over, and today. This is the position: On 1st October last year he paid £10 8s. 3d. for his mortgage. There has been no change in that monthly figure—the Bank rate has not yet caught up, but it will do so. Rates were £1 19s. 2d. in October last; they are £2 0s. 3d. today. Food for the household in October last was £10 a month; today it is £16 a month. Clothing was £1 last October; it is still £1 today. Meals out were £4 7s. in October last; they are £4 15s. today. His fares were £2 18s. 6d. last October; they are £4 1s. today.
I have taken the trouble to get the details and to work out an average over all these budgets, showing the rise in the cost of living since the present Government took over. Rents or mortgage and


rates have gone up on an average 8 per cent. Food and household expenses have gone up on an average 16 per cent. Fares to work have gone up on an average 30 per cent., meals out 10 per cent. These are the budgets of people who are meeting the cost of living.
I do not want to weary the Committee with too many figures, but the best evidence that people have not the amount of money to spend today that they have had in the last three years is that for the first time in the three months of this year, taking Trustee, National Savings and Post Office Savings together, there has been a decrease in the amount of money accumulated.
As the Committee knows, I am by profession a trade union officer. My work in the House has prevented me from doing that work for some time, but I can say with truth that those colleagues of mine have shown by their example that they love their country, that they are prepared to make sacrifices. However, one has to acknowledge that their job is to protect the interests of their members to secure improved wages and conditions of service.
The responsible trade union leader is aware that in present economic circumstances to press for wage increases resulting in higher costs of goods sent overseas, thus making it more difficult to sell them, would have repercussions which would affect us all. Equally, however, they have to say to themselves that the policy of the present Government differs so much from the policy of the previous one that while they were right to say in the case of the previous Government that they would get their members to exercise wage restraint, they cannot do it now.
They said to the Chancellor when he first took office that they would not make any difficulties for the new administration although it was Conservative. They said they would do all they could to help. The Chancellor has acknowledged that. So the trade unions have done their best. The man really responsible, and who has a lot to answer for, is the present Prime Minister. If, when the Labour Government was in power, he had made the kind of speeches he is now making, calling for a national effort, we would not today be in our present difficulties.
The right hon. Gentleman said, "Set the people free." It has been shown by the policy of the present Government that what setting the people free really means is freedom for the vested interests and control for the trade unionists. Well the trade unionists will not have it. They gave the Chancellor a reasoned statement before he presented his Budget. What happened? No notice was taken of it or, if any notice was taken, no concessions were given, no points were met. Yet the private interests who pressed for the denationalisation of steel and road transport, and the brewers who wanted to go into the new towns—all those claims were met with alacrity.
So the T.U.C. feels that it has not been justly treated on the question of food subsidies and the Purchase Tax, and it has made it quite clear that it expects the Government to do something about reducing the cost of living. If they can do that, then the T.U.C. will be better able to go to its members and say, "In the national interest it is better not to press for wage applications." What the T.U.C. wants to see is a reduction in the cost of living, and it expects this from the Government, because they said they were going to do it, and they should do it.
There are two ways of solving this problem. One is by increased production. Nobody will deny that the last Government provided full employment and increased production. The other way is by import cuts.

Mr. Peter Remnant: Put him right.

Mr. Bottomley: I will put the hon. Member right. The other way is by import cuts of cotton, metal and things of that kind. If we do not buy the cotton, there is unemployment in Lancashire. If we do not buy the hides, we have unemployment in Norwich and Kettering and elsewhere.

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: if we do not buy the metal, we have unemployment in Birmingham and in the light engineering industries in the South of England. Therefore, we do not spend so much currency, and in addition, we make unemployment in those areas. It is well known


that the labour content of any manufactured article is particularly high. John Lewis's have already said that there is to be a cut in wages. Under full employment, those cuts can be resisted, but with unemployment people either take the job at the money which is offered or they go to the employment exchange and take a chance.
It is very surprising that the Prime Mnister, who not many years ago was Chancellor, said something which is quotable, but I prefer for this purpose to take an extract from that publication by Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill," in which he said:
No section of labour will accept lower wages merely in response to sentimental speeches. We are depending for the reduction of wages on the pressure of unemployment, strikes and lock outs, and in order to make sure of this result we are deliberately intensifying unemployment.
It is significant that the Prime Minister, who was Chancellor then, is the Leader of the present Administration. We have a right to know whether that is the policy of the Government. They certainly seem to be following it by their examples already.
What we say to the party opposite is that we expect from them some statement as to why they made their election broadcasts. I have a note of one by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I quite expected him to resign. This is what he said:
For years I had some doubts about the Conservative Party … But in the past 18 months, as a Member of the House of Commons, I have seen things for myself. The party has been liberalised; it has got a real belief in human welfare, in freedom, in full employment and in the social services, and it is a lie to pretend that they want to cut them down.
The Committee know—at least, on this side—and the country knows that the policy that the party opposite is following is one which is in opposition to all their statements. We have a right to expect the resignation of the Parliamentary Secretary.
Therefore, I ask the Financial Secretary in his reply to give us what he, with the rest of his party, gave at the time of the General Election: the statement on how they are going to keep full employment and reduce the cost of living. Already we are aware by the speeches

we have heard that we shall not get satisfaction. The Minister of Food has failed considerably, and I shall move that we have a cut in his salary of £5.
I therefore beg to move, "That Item Class IX, Vote 7, Ministry of Food, be reduced by £5."

9.29 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Until the last few minutes of his speech, the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) made a much more agreeable and helpful contribution than did his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in opening the debate. The right hon. Gentleman's speech, when contrasted with that of his right hon. Friend, underlined the fundamental dualism of the party opposite. I fully understand the manifest reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman to move the reduction which he knows perfectly well is justified neither on the run of the debate nor on the conduct of policy by my right hon. and gallant Friend.
The right hon. Member said—I took it down—"With reference to the development of colonial territories, a rise in the cost of living necessarily must go on as long as we depend on imports." I am not sure that I personally would go so far as the right hon. Gentleman, but that was a generous and reasonable comment, wholly contrary to the comments made by a number of his hon. Friends who denounce every increase in the price of every item in the cost of living index as being a grave injury to some section or other in this country.
The party opposite really cannot have it both ways. Either they must take the attitude of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) and say that, cost what it may to this country or the other countries, the cost of living must not in any circumstances rise, or they can take the attitude of the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham and say that there are other considerations to be borne in mind.
I must, however, correct the right hon. Gentleman on another point. In suggesting that the present Administration inherited advantages denied to its predecessor at the time it took office, the right hon. Gentleman referred to stocks of commodities. He must have known that


that was one part, and the lesser part, of the picture and that at the time my right hon. and gallant Friend assumed responsibility for policy he took over from the previous Administration a grave and growing drain on the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area, about which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) now prides himself on having given a warning before the Election.
It is not good enough for the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham to come forward and say that everything was easy for us because they left stocks behind, while ignoring the fact that the means to produce and replace those stocks were very exiguous and that a situation was left behind in which it was quite obvious, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South has confirmed, that imports would have to be cut. I say to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham, as one who admires his debating style, that, manifestly, to give us one side of the picture whilst excluding the other is not really playing quite fair with this Committee.
I also thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little less than fair when he referred to the increases in the prices of cheese and bacon which my right hon. and gallant Friend imposed last autumn. If the right hon. Gentleman had cared to inquire into the matter, he would have realised that those increases were required, not to implement the policy of the present Administration, but to keep the total of the food subsidies within the ceiling imposed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South last year.
It is a fact that, in order to carry that out, the prices of those commodities ought to have been raised some months earlier. If they had been raised some months earlier they need not, perhaps, have been raised so high, and my right hon. and gallant Friend would not have inherited the necessity to impose those increases. He had to do so in order to carry out the policy of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and as a result of the delay of the former Minister of Food in not raising the prices at the right time—a circumstance perhaps not wholly unconnected with the last General Election.
I should like to answer the direct question which the right hon. Member

put to me. He asked about the further increases for food. The position is that with the 1½d. which will be added as a result of the increased price of milk which comes into effect tomorrow, 11d. of the 1s. 6d. forecast by my right hon. Friend will have been reached.

Mr. Shinwell: Tell that to the marines.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know why the late Minister of Defence feels it necessary to be scornful about the Royal Marines. What the Marines say about the right hon. Gentleman is another matter.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has said that what the Marines say about me would be very interesting. I challenge the hon. Gentleman here and now, or at any future date, to give any evidence that anybody associated with the Royal Marines has said anything derogatory about me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I respond. A very distinguished member of that Corps, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has said a great many things about the right hon. Gentleman.
As I was saying, when the right hon. Gentleman interpolated that very cogent interruption, the 11d. will be reached tomorrow, leaving 7d. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to postpone the increases amounting to 7d. until some time in the early autumn when they will coincide with the increases in the compensating social benefits, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance has already announced.

Mr. F. Beswick: Would the hon. Gentleman apply that also to the consequential increases which will follow on the cost of manufacturing pastry and confectionery because of the increased price of sugar announced last week?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am referring, as the hon. Member, who I know is familiar with the subject, is aware, to the effect of the subsidy adjustments upon the subsidised articles, rationed and unrationed, bought by the housewife. It covers all of them. As the Committee is aware, there will be compensations to assist those sections of the community which otherwise might have some difficulty in meeting the increases, and during


the period of the late summer and early autumn when those compensations come into effect, or at substantially the same time, my right hon. Friend will make his adjustments in food prices.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham that this is a very great issue. The cost of living cannot be separated from, it is indeed a function of, the general well-being of our economy, and indeed, the general well-being of the international economy. It is really not possible, as some hon. Members seem to believe, to isolate the cost of living from all the various economic forces, favourable and unfavourable, which are operating in the world today.
If I may, I would ask certain hon. Members, who have sought to pinpoint their speeches on the narrow issue of the increases on certain foodstuffs, to bear in mind that those increases are themselves directly related to the whole economy of this country and also directly connected with the efforts being made to restore that economy.
The debate has been to a very considerable extent concentrated on food, but it deals of course—as it was necessary at one time to point out to the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie—with the whole question of the cost of living, and if we are to judge properly of price movements and their effects on our people we must look at those movements as a whole. Food is, of course, an immensely important item. I should be far from disputing that. In the latest cost-of-living index the weighting given to it is 40 per cent.
I recall that in the course of the debate one or two hon. Members, including, I think, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), criticised the actual construction of that index. I am board to point out that that index was constructed with the assistance of an advisory committee appointed by the late Administration and included among its members one of the most prominent trade unionists in this country. It is based upon very careful research and, in my view, undoubtedly it gives a fair picture of consumption.
It is important to recall that there is still outside the food zone some 60 per cent., and if we are to judge of the effect

of alterations in food prices upon the well-being of our people we cannot disregard the movements that are taking place over 60 per cent. of the money that they spend. There are within that 60 per cent. certain individual items, such as fuel and transport, which are tending to rise, but generally the prospect over the whole of this 60 per cent. is encouraging.
The post-Korean rise in world raw material prices has now been fully reflected in the price of our manufactured goods. The wholesale price index of basic materials used in manufacturing and obtained mainly from abroad rose by 75 per cent. from June, 1950, to March, 1951, but it is now 25 per cent. below that peak, as the downward movement of last summer has been renewed during the last two months. That should mean that we are reasonably certain of fairly stable retail prices for manufactured goods for several months.
This is borne out by the actual price movements of clothing and household goods, about a quarter of whose cost represents the cost of imported raw materials. Clothing figures ceased to rise in December, compared with an 18 per cent. rise in the previous 12 months. Prices of household goods have stayed roughly the same since August, compared with a 22 per cent. rise in the 12 months before that. If developments are not affected by large wage increases, we really can look forward to reasonably stable, and in some cases falling, prices for about 60 per cent. of the goods and services which the ordinary person in this country uses.
It is not unimportant in this issue to bear in mind that that is the prospect in respect of the goods on which go 12s. of every £1 spent by the average family in this country. That is a very important factor to be borne in mind, not least in connection with those matters of wage claims to which reference was made by one or two hon. Members.
One would really think, to listen to some of the speeches in this debate, that the cost of living had remained low and stable until last October and had suddenly rocketed. In fact, hon. Members opposite will go down to history as a Government under which for six years there was all but a continuous rise in the cost of living. Therefore, if there is any force in their argument that Governments


should prevent rises in the cost of living, then they are bound to explain why it is that during the six years in which they enjoyed untrammelled powers in this country the cost of living rose year by year.
In the period between their taking office and—with a certain degree of expedition—quitting it in October last, the total rise amounted to 40 per cent. I think it might be of assistance to the Committee if I gave a comparison. Between the time this Administration took office and the end of May the rise in the general cost of living index figure was 5 per cent. For the exactly comparable dates in the previous year—during the Administration of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—the comparable figure was 8 per cent.
It really is not possible for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that in their case the rise was the result of inevitable world forces whereas in our case it was the result of our policy. That simply will not wash, because financial policies must be looked at as a whole and judged by their results, and if one forces up prices by an inflationary financial policy it really is no sufficient excuse to say that one did one's best to bring them down a bit by a high level of food subsidies. It is rather reminiscent of the man who was ordered by his doctor to take a cold bath and who took his usual hot one and put a lump of ice in it.
The Committee may recall that under the late Administration the people concerned paid in both ways. They paid in steadily rising prices and also in taxation to finance the subsidies which failed to prevent that rise in prices. We, at any rate, have given to 16 million earners the right to retain and spend, as a counterbalance to rising prices, a larger proportion of what they earn.
The right hon. Member for Easington and one or two other hon. Members opposite referred to extravagant statements supposed to have been made by my right hon. Friends on this subject. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite really must not adopt so aggrieved a pose of injured innocence. Right back in the 1945 General Election one of the most prominent figures of their party—now, unhappily no longer with us—told the people:
Labour will protect your savings against rising prices,

just as in their manifesto—"Labour believes in Britain"—published in 1949, the party opposite said:
Labour will continue to restrain price increases.
"To continue" in that expression has a certain delicate irony.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the debate on the National Insurance Bill on 6th February, 1946, said:
The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the Government's intention to hold the cost of living at about 31 per cent. over the September, 1939, level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1742.]
That would seem to be an extravagant statement compared with which the observations of one or two of my hon. Friends are perhaps not of very great interest. In 1950 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) said:
Now I come to what is one of the most urgent problems for everyone and every housewife—the cost of living. We shall make a forthright attack on excessive prices.
Did the right hon. Gentleman then know that the most rapid rise in the cost of living lay immediately ahead?
The charge which has been made by a number of hon. Members opposite—and one which calls for serious attention—has been that the action which my right hon. Friend took in connection with the food subsidies upset stability and therefore was likely to produce repercussions which all hon. Members would deplore. I think that accurately sets out the serious argument which was put, and I should like to analyse it for a moment, if I may.
In the first place, let us get it clear that the mere keeping of the food subsidies at the ceiling imposed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—£410 million a year—would not have given stability. If the food subsidies had been fixed at that level, substantial rises in food prices would have followed. I suggest to the Committee that there is no peculiar sanctity about that figure of £410 million, which, as hon. Members know, was arrived at largely by accident. But the practical point which I would urge upon hon. Members is that even by retaining that figure, we should not have obtained the stability which hon. Members opposite say we have destroyed by our adjustments of the subsidies. The only effect


of retaining that figure would have been to lower the place on the scale at which the increases in food prices were taking place.
To put it brutally, there was no stability to upset. The only way in which stability could have been obtained would have been by a large increase in the subsidies. Is that what is now advocated by the Opposition? If it is, then I am bound to point out that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, in what I think was the last speech he made from this Box, on 26th July, vigorously argued against any such action. Unless it is disputed, I take it that an unlimited increase in the food subsidies so as to maintain stability is not even now urged from the benches opposite.
If that is so, we are then simply in this position: assuming that the rises must take place and that the cost of stability is too high, it is a pure matter of judgment at what particular point one fixes the subsidy level. On that basis let me read to the House some very sensible words.

Mr. Shinwell: That will be a change.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In a debate opened by the right hon. Gentleman, it undoubtedly will be. Let me read these words:
This year—and we must face this—if we had spent another £100 million in subsidies, it would certainly not have prevented a steep rise in the cost of living index. The difference that it would have made would have been only about 2½ points. Can anyone really suppose that this would have made a crucial difference in achieving stability? But to pay for it, of course, would have involved a further increase of 6d. in the Income Tax at all three levels. If, on the other hand, such an increase in subsidies, as I claim, could not be relied upon to achieve greater stability, then surely they must be compared as a matter of social policy with many other claims on the Exchequer, especially in the field of social services, such as higher pensions and an increase in family allowances, both of which are fairly closely related to need and are at least subject to taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 662.]
Those words were spoken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South from this Box on 26th July, 1951. They have, it seems to me, great relevance to the issue before us. They admit that there was no question of obtaining stability, and there is therefore no issue of principle between us at all. The only issue of principle

would be, surely, whether we maintain the present costs regardless of subsidy payments or whether we fix a lower figure that would be the only issue of principle. Once we get away from that, it is purely a question of degree where we fix the figure. What is perhaps significant is that in the words I have quoted from the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, he was indicating quite clearly that the competing claims for the money spent on food subsidies of certain social payments ought not to be disregarded and, in particular, that two of the objectives in connection with which that money might well be spent are family allowances and pensions. It will not have escaped you, Sir Charles, that it is precisely in those directions that my right hon. Friend has made very substantial advances.
It therefore surely becomes clear that all this atmosphere of the sacrosanctity of the figure of £410 million really does not stand up to analysis—that it is a matter of political and economical judgment from time to time to decide whether the money available is to be spent on maintaining the food subsidies at a particular level, or whether, in the circumstances of that time, that money can better be used to relieve those most hardly hit and at the same time to provide, through reliefs in Income Tax, a stimulus to greater effort and greater endeavour by those on whose efforts our national recovery depends. Then, I think, we have really narrowed our differences down to a matter that must vary from year to year, to a position in which it may well be that in one year one figure is the right one and in another year another one.
And there really the Government stand. We have thought, looking over the field as a whole, and in particular in view of the situation, of which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham reminded us, which we inherited from the late Administration, that with the compelling need in these circumstances to provide the stimulus that Income Tax concessions can give to greater effort, it was right in the circumstances to make this adjustment in the food subsidies. Hon. Members, in calculating their effects, will, I hope, neither underrate nor exaggerate their consequences. I am sure that the Committee would be right to bear in mind that what people spend on food is not completely separate from—a unique part of—their family budget: it is part of that


expenditure—up to 40 per cent, of that expenditure; and the other 60 per cent. of it goes in directions in which, as I have said to the Committee, there are reasonable prospects, if restraint is shown by all concerned, of a steady, and, perhaps, falling, price level.
It is in those circumstances that the decision was taken. I would respectfully say this to the Committee, that the decision was not taken lightly. It was taken with

a full view of the grim national necessities, which this Government did not create but which this Government have to tackle. It is part and parcel of a policy which, as the months pass, will, I suggest to the Committee, show increasing success.

Question put, "That Item Class IX, Vote 7, Ministry of Food, be reduced by £5."

The Committee divided Ayes, 274; Noes, 301.

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Adams, Richard
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Albu, A. H.
Edelman, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Keenan, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kenyon, C.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
King, Dr. H. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kinley, J.


Awbery, S. S,
Ewart, R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Ayles, W. H.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Field, W. J.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Baird, J.
Fienburgh, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Balfour, A.
Finch, H. J
Lewis, Arthur


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Bartley, P.
Follick, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Bence, C. R.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Benn, Wedgwood
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, J. E.


Benson, G.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McGhee, H. G.


Beswick, F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McGovern, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McInnes, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gibson, C. W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Blackburn, F.
Glanville, James
McLeavy, F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Boardman, H.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt, Hon. A. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brookway, A. F.
Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, A. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mayhew, C. P.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mellish, R. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, F.


Burton, Miss F. E
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R


Callaghan, L. J.
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Carmichael, J.
Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W


Champion, A. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Chapman, W. D.
Healay, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Clunie, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.


Cocks, F. S.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Moyle, A.


Coldrick, W.
Hobson, C. R
Murray, J. D.


Collick, P. H.
Holman, P.
Nally, W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Cove, W. G.
Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Oldfield, W. H.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hughes, Entrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.


Daines, P.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pannell, Charles


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Janner, B.
Parker, J.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paton, J.


Deer, G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Peart, T. F.


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Dodds, N. N.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stetchford)
Poole, C. C.


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Popplewell, E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)




Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)


Proctor, W. T
Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Steele, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Rankin, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Reeves, J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
West, D. G.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr Barnett
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Swingler, S. T.
Wigg, George


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Ross, William
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, David (Neath)


Royle, C.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)


Short, E. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Temney, F.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Slater, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wyatt, W. L.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Usborne, H. C.
Yates, V. F


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Viant, S. P.
Younger, Rt Hon K


Snow, J. W.
Wallace, H. W.



Sorensen, R. W.
Watkins, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cole, Norman
Harden, J. R. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crouch, R. F.
Hay, John


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heald, Sir Lionel


Baker, P. A. D.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Baldwin, A. E.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Banks, Col. C.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Barber, A. P. L.
De la Bere, Sir Rupert
Hirst, Geoffrey


Barlow, Sir John
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baxter, A. B.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hollis, M. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Hope, Lord John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Donner, P. W.
Hopkinson, Henry


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Doughty, C. J. A
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M P


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Drayson, G. B.
Horobin, I. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drewe, C
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt.Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Black, C. W.
Elli[...]t, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, A. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fell, A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bowen, E. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fletcher-Cooke, C
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Braine, B. R.
Fort, R.
Jennings, R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Foster, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gage, C. H.
Kaberry, D.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Bullard, D. G.
Gammans, L. D.
Lambton, Viscount


Bullock, Capt. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Godber, J. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Leather, E. H. C.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gough, C. F. H.
Legge-Bourge, Maj. E. A. H


Carson, Hon. E.
Gower, H. R.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Cary, Sir Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lindsay, Martin


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Grimond, J.
Linstead, H. N.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon G. (King's Norton)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)







Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stevens, G. P.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Osborne, C.
Storey, S.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McAdden, S. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Studholme, H. G.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Summers, G. S.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Sutcliffe, H.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


McKibbin, A. J.
Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Teeling, W.


Maclay, Hon. John
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Profumo, J. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Raikes, H. V.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Redmayne, M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Renton, D. L. M.
Tilney, John


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Manningham Buller, Sir R. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Turner, H. F. L.


Markham, Major S. F.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turton, R. H.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Marples, A. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vane, W. M. F.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roper, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vosper, D. F.


Maude, Angus
Russell, R. S.
Wade, D. W.


Maudling, R
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Medlicott, Brig. F
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Mellor, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Molson, A. H. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Scott, R. Donald
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Shepherd, William
Wellwood, W.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Snadden, W. MoN.
Wills, G.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Soames, Capt. C
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nutting, Anthony
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.



Odey, G. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Butcher and Mr. Heath.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FERTILISER SUBSIDY)

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Fertilisers (England, Wales and Scotland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
I understand that we may also discuss with this Motion the following Motion:
That the Draft Fertilisers (Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

The two Schemes differ in one or two important respects from the existing fertiliser subsidy Scheme introduced under the Act passed this year. The existing Scheme expires at midnight tonight, and I hope we shall still be surviving at that time. The existing Scheme covers England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland together and provides for a subsidy for phosphates only at the rate of approximately 30 per cent.
One of the features of the new Schemes is that there will now be separate arrangements for England, Wales and Scotland and for Northern Ireland. Section 1 of the Act gives power to make separate Schemes where that is considered desirable. In the Northern Ireland Scheme the subsidy is to be paid through the manufacturers while in the case of the Scheme for England, Wales and Scotland it is to be paid direct to the farmers as under the existing Scheme.
The two methods are within the terms of the substantive Act. Both methods


have their attractions. Paying the subsidy through the manufacturers has the advantage of being simpler in that the amount is paid direct to the manufacturers and the fertiliser is then sold to the farmer at the lower subsidised price, and the farmer does not have to take any action to claim the subsidy.
On the other hand, paying the subsidy to the farmer has the advantages that the farmer appreciates the cost of the fertilisers that he is buying and the value of the subsidy which the Government are giving. It is a substantial psychological advantage that the farmer should understand exactly what the financial position is. The disadvantage of the latter arrangement is that the farmer must make an application for subsidy for each individual purchase, and that means a certain amount of additional paper and administrative work.
In Northern Ireland there is a certain difference. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is smiling. Apart from differences to which he has drawn the attention of this House from time to time, there is the difference in Northern Ireland that very few merchants there deal in fertilisers. In fact, there are only 10 as against something like 300 in England, Scotland, and Wales.
Therefore, there is an exceptional convenience there in applying the subsidy through merchants instead of direct to the farmers. On consultation the wish has been expressed that the Northern Ireland Scheme should be arranged on those lines, and that is why we are proposing that that Scheme should be a manufacturers' scheme and the England, Wales and Scotland Schemes should continue to rest on an application by the farmer.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Did similar consultation take place in England, Scotland and Wales as in Northern Ireland before this decision was reached?

Mr. Nugent: It certainly has taken place with the Scottish Office, and they have opted to continue the existing Scheme, considering that on balance the advantages lay in application being made by the individual farmer.
The second new feature we now propose is that the fertiliser subsidy should, in addition to applying to phosphatic fertiliser, apply to nitrogenous fertiliser at an approximate rate of 15 per cent. There was a good deal of discussion on this particular point and attention was drawn to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). We naturally took note of his observations and we considered what was the actual proposition, at that time.
We were not satisfied that the supply position would be such for the 12 months which finishes tonight that the subsidy would be justified for nitrogenous manures. We now have the details showing what is the picture over the past 12 months, and in the light of that we feel that we are now justified in proposing that there should be this subsidy at the rate of approximately 15 per cent. for nitrogenous manures.
The House will probably be interested to hear the figures which have persuaded us that this is the right proposition to make now. For the fertiliser year from 1st July to 30th June the figures show that the delivery of nitrogen was 175,000 tons compared with 215,000 tons in the previous year, a drop of 40,000 tons in deliveries. The supply rate for nitrogen was something like 220,000 tons in 1950–51 and 205,000 tons for the year expiring tonight. In the light of that we feel that there is a sufficient margin of supply which warrants the subsidy to ensure the whole of it being taken out.
The House will recollect that while the Act was going through the House we explained that there is always a keen demand in the Colonies, where there is a real and continuing need for nitrogen, for surplus nitrogen which we are not using here. Therefore there is no danger of any nitrogen that we can produce not being fully taken up.
There is one point about nitrogen which may be of interest, in passing. Although the total consumption of nitrogen dropped during the year, the consumption of nitro-chalk increased from 267,000 tons in 1950–51 to 300,000 tons in 1951–52. It has the attraction of being a very conveniently applied form of fertiliser, and there is a great demand for it among farmers.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Was that not always likely to happen in a wet season? Do farmers not want very much less nitrogen when they have a job to deal with their crops, anyway?

Mr. Nugent: The 12 months starting 1st July last was not wholly wet. A part of it was wet. There is a sufficient margin to justify our giving a subsidy of 15 per cent. to make sure that the gap which now exists between delivery and supply is taken up.
On phosphates, another point of interest to the right hon. Member for Belper, I give the figures for the two relevant years. In 1950–51, the total consumption of phosphoric acid was 418,000 tons. The consumption for the year 1951–52 was 295,000 tons, a very big drop indeed. That figure fully justifies the measure which my right hon. Friend took in the first place of applying this subsidy to 30 per cent. of the phosphatic manures. It was the first step to stimulate demand among farmers and to overcome the depressing effect on demand which the very steep rise in prices last July had had.
It is proposed to give the two Schemes a life of two years. My right hon. Friend would normally review the general working of the Schemes at the Price Review next year in the light of agricultural conditions generally and the supply-demand position of fertilisers, and he would be quite free either to allow the Schemes to continue or to propose a new scheme to the House varying the rates in whatever way seemed best to him to promote further production.
Finally, the House will have noticed some small amendments in the Schedule, particularly in the basic slag rates, which are confusing. The simple explanation is that in the interim, between the time when the first Scheme was drafted and tonight, the levy which was paid by the basic slag merchants in this country, to equalise the price of basic slag between home-produced and imported basic slag has since been removed. That has resulted in some adjustment in the price level of basic slag, and the result is the variation in the Schedule, as now seen. At the same time, an attempt has been made to get these Schedules of contributions as nearly related as possible to the market value of the different grades of basic slag. That accounts for the difference in the Schedule.
Those are the main points which distinguish these two Schemes from that which expires tonight, and with that explanation I ask the House to give them their approval.

Mr. Paget: May I ask a question before the hon. Gentleman sits down? Is there any use other than agricultural to which the various fertilisers set out in the Schedule are put?

Mr. Nugent: If the hon. and learned Gentleman means agriculture, including horticulture, the answer is, none that I know of.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: The hon. Gentleman has moved that we approve these Schemes in the competent and charming way that we have come to expect from him, not altogether stressing, but hinting from time to time that he is happier about this Scheme because he has met many of the criticisms that we made when he brought the previous one. As long as he and his right hon. Friend follow their present pattern of making in the new Schemes all the amendments we asked for previously, he will go on increasing in happiness in his job and having the ear of the House.
But we are very modest on this side of the House. We only put up on each occasion just so many comments and criticisms that we think it reasonable for him to accept between now and next time, and it means that we shall go on putting them up with no finality in the operation. The difficulty is that I am afraid the life of this Government will not be long enough for him to share in that finality.
My first point is one that I have made previously. I am still not convinced that the hon. Gentleman is right in being so sure that he ought to go on with another Scheme to pay part of the price to the farmer in this form. He rather took it for granted tonight and did not discuss the principle of a fertiliser subsidy.
I am well aware that many of those who normally agree with me in this approach to the question of subsidy payments, as against end-price payments, nevertheless feel that there are some cases that are strong, some that are weak and some in between and that the question of a subsidy on fertilisers comes in the in-between group; that when one pays a


subsidy for fertiliser one is nearer to getting something for which one pays in a specific way than in the case of a number of other examples of subsidies. Indeed, there may be something in that. I feel that it is the nearest thing to a borderline case.
Nevertheless I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think the case still has to be made, and I do not believe he has made it tonight or that it is as easily made as even its keenest defenders think. Having had a long period of intensive advice being given to the farming community, having had a long period of special payments of this kind, we are still saying, at the end of all that, that we have to tell the farmer how his business ought to be run and what he ought to do.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a long history of complaining bitterly about the men in Whitehall telling the people outside who have spent their lives in the business how their businesses ought to be conducted. So I think it ought to be known in the countryside that that is the philosophy of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend.
I am not convinced that we could not get fertilisers used properly where they ought to be used, and in the quantity in which they ought to be used, by using the end-price payment method, the guaranteed price payments method, together with the advisory and persuasive powers of the Ministry. I think it would be a much longer-term method and a much more secure business to do it that way.
I am not at all sure that paying the subsidy on these fertilisers is in fact assisting the farmer at all. I believe that in the end it tends to encourage him still more to do anything that might seem to be specially attractive financially, while the real benefit is going to the manufacturer. The manufacturers of these fertilisers, both of the nitrogenous and phosphates and of the compounds, are vast, well organised near-monopoly people, making enormous profits, with very heavy capital structures, who would ordinarily, in the circumstance which applied in the past year, have had to face the problem of how to dispose of their products.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the uptake of phosphates in 1950–51 as being 418,000

tons and said it dropped to 295,000 tons in 1951–52 He claimed that that showed that the farmer needed a special subsidy. If it did prove that, it strikes a considerable blow at the argument which hon. Members on both sides of the House have employed in favour of guaranteed prices, if in fact it has now been proved that we have to take something from them and pay it in the form of a special subsidy to get the farmer to do the job.
But it may equally have proved that the manufacturers of these fertilisers are in fact not being competitive and are not trying to sell their products in a competitive way but are relying on the Ministry to come to their aid and subsidise the farmer in order that they can go on comfortably without having to face the fact that they need to reduce their prices to get the farmer to take their products.
I have talked with a number of farmers since we last discussed this matter, and I believe that there is very considerable room for urging that the margins on which the fertiliser manufacturers are working should be rapidly overhauled and vigorously attended to. I know that the Minister told me on the last occasion when we discussed the matter that the fertiliser prices were controlled by Orders of the Ministry of Materials and added the assurance that they would continue to look at the matter very closely. I ask the question, has there been any examination of the returns of these companies, their profits and their margins, between the carrying of the first Order in April and the decision to have a second Order now? I believe that the answer is that there has not been, and the fact that there has not been is a very considerable weakness.
I dislike the inference that the farmer is to be labelled as receiving a subsidy because he will not do something which is ordinary good husbandry practice without it, when in fact we are assisting the manufacturers of fertilisers a great deal more than the farmer. I thought the hon. Gentleman gave the whole game away on this.
I took down the sentence he used—"Where the farmer has to pay the full cost of the fertiliser he does see the real cost and this is a great psychological benefit." That is exactly what we have been saying—we should not pay in subsidies but in the end price, and if it is


in fact such a great psychological benefit that he should know what it is costing, why are we hiding it from him as we are by paying a subsidy through whatever medium one chooses to pay?
The other way in which we are helping the manufacturers is that we assist them to get rid of stuff that they are finding it difficult to sell. The hon. Gentleman discussed the change in the price of basic slag in this Scheme as compared with the last one. That suggests very much that the manufacturers of this by-product have on their hands a good deal of not particularly good stuff, which is sticking very badly, and which they hope to get rid of as a result of the Ministry deliberately subsidising their somewhat inferior stuff. When we pay an increased price, compared with last time, for inferior basic slag primarily, as I believe, because people who hold it find it difficult to get rid of, there is a double argument against this proposal.
Leaving that general argument of principle on one side, the main change in the Scheme is that it has been decided to include nitrogenous as well as phosphatic fertilisers. This is something which we urged upon the Government only three months ago. The hon. Gentleman now produces figures to show that the off-take of nitrogenous fertiliser was so much less than the supply that the Government can now afford to subsidise it. I suggest that that is another criticism of this Scheme and of the way it is to be applied and the reasons behind it.
The Ministry have not approached this problem from the point of view that the subsidy must be paid because in no other way can the right thing be done. They have approached it from the point of view of asking, "Can we afford the subsidy? Will the supply position stand it if we pay it?" It is fantastic to approach the problem in that way. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend would not accept the fact in April but he now says, as I said then, that the supply of nitrogen was in excess of the off-take. I take no credit for saying that. I was merely following the advice of the hon. Gentleman's officers, of which apparently he was taking little notice.
The off-take last year was 175,000 tons. Against that the hon. Gentleman says we have a supply of 205,000 tons. That

is to say, there is a 30,000 tons gap. The hon. Gentleman said there was a great demand in our Colonies. As I well knew in the last two Administrations, we had many long and difficult discussions as to how far, in the interests of world food production and the raising of standards of living in the economically backward countries, we ought to meet their demands as a first or early charge upon our supplies.
Now the Minister is going to put a 15 per cent. subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers bought in this country. By how much does he expect the 175,000 tons used in this country to be increased as a result of that subsidy? If this country takes up the whole of the 30,000 tons gap, how is the demand from the Colonies to be met? Does it mean that the Colonies will get less because he has decided to give this subsidy as a result, I suspect, of I.C.I., seeing Fisons and others getting on the bandwagon, putting more pressure upon him than we have been able to put in this House?
How will the Minister meet that Colonial demand? I am not going to cavil when arguments which I have put forward are met from the Government side, but the aspect to which I have referred increases my general lack of enthusiasm for this Scheme. I should have thought that in the case of the phosphatic, and certainly in the case of the nitrogenous fertilisers, we could have had the slack taken up, if we wanted to increase their use, by education and advice. I agree that nitrogen cannot be taken out of the second Scheme if phosphate is put in, but the fact that the supply of nitrogen is already nearly taken up leads of the conclusion that we ought to reconsider the whole question of this subsidy.
There is one other criticism I have to make. When the Minister was justifying this Scheme to us some time ago he said:
I recognise, of course, that other fertilisers, especially nitrogen, are at least of equal importance, but the exceptional price rise that occurred in July last year, for which insufficient allowance was made at the previous Annual Review, affected phosphatic fertilisers very much more than either nitrogen or potash. The limitation of the subsidy to phosphates is designed to bring prices of the several fertilisers into something like their previous relationship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 246.]


The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said nothing about that tonight. If in fact giving a subsidy to phosphatics was necessary in order to bring the prices of that and other forms of fertiliser back to their previous relationship, surely by now giving it to other forms of fertiliser you must again be disturbing the price relationship. What does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say to that? Does he say that prices have changed in the meantime or does he throw off completely his right hon. Friend's argument on that occasion?
This raises the question of cost, and here is a very tangled and confused story. When he was discussing this point on Second Reading of the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Bill the Minister referred to the rise in prices, and said it
is now a shade over £10 million, and it is this figure which the Government had in mind in fixing the rates at which the new subsidy would be paid during the first year of operation,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 244–6]
And certainly in all the discussions we had this Scheme was to give a subsidy of £10 million to the industry.
When the White Paper came out the following appeared:
On the quantities of fertilisers bought by farmers in 1951–52, the cost of the subsidy at this rate, in respect of review commodities, is £5.4 million. The allocation in the award of £7.5 million for fertiliser subsidy means that in the next Scheme to be presented to Parliament the effective total rate of subsidy can be increased, and that a subsidy need not necessarily be confined to phosphates only.
Originally it was to cost £10 million. Then it was found it would cost only £5 million. Then they provided £7.5 million, and that is how they have included the nitrogen. It is difficult to make these three figures tally.
I want to ask two questions, to which we ought to have answers because the House and the country ought to know what this Scheme is involving. And the farmers ought to know how much of the price award has been devoted to this, and whether they will get it all back. What was the sum allocated in the price award for this purpose? Was it the £10 million which the Minister said on 20th February he had allowed for it? Or was it £5 million or £7.5 million? And by how much will the inclusion of the nitrogenous

fertilisers increase the cost over what it was when we only had phosphatics in?
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made no comment on that tonight. I ask him to let us know before the debate comes to an end. If it does not add to the cost we are bound to conclude that what was deducted has in fact all been paid out by way of subsidy and the farmers do lose quite considerable allowances they otherwise would have got. He is now paying the individual farmers instead of paying as under the old arrangements, and as he now proposes to pay it in Northern Ireland from this year on, that is through the merchants or the distributors. But he admitted that one of the objections to this sort of subsidy is that there is created a very large administrative machine with large numbers of forms, all for the purpose of paying out a lot of very small items.
Hon. Members opposite when they were in opposition were great pleaders every night for less forms. There were tremendous demonstrations on the benches opposite about the needless number of forms that the Socialist Government were supposed to be handing out. We are now going to have several hundreds of thousands of forms when, on the Parliamentary Secretary's own showing, we need only 300. He said that in Northern Ireland we are going to pay it through the merchant and the distributor because there are only 10 merchants there, and it is easier to pay through 10 than it would be to pay it through 300 in England, Scotland and Wales. That is true. But how much easier would it be to pay through 300 in England, Scotland and Wales than through 370,000, which is what he is doing?
He has chosen, despite his own argument, deliberately to pay at 370,000 points of payment when, on his own showing, he could easily pay at 300 points, and the 300 points would comprise much more substantial men who would be far less harassed by the seasons and more able to cope with the paper work involved. In addition, because they would pay for quantities and bulks the paper work would be little more at each one of the 300 points than it would be at each one of the 370,000. I ask the hon. Gentleman to apply the-arguments in his own brief to the case which he has chosen to defend. I believe that in this case he has not done so.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the number of forms and transactions should be cut down to a minimum, would he say why in that case when he was a member of the Government, his Department continued to allow the lime subsidy to be paid optionally either to the farmer himself or to his merchant?

Mr. Brown: Because in that case there were very good arguments for it. I am dealing tonight with this case where we always took the other view. One of the great merits of the Labour Government was that we were not like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, doctrinaire. We approached each subject on its merits, and we decided one way on one thing because it merited being treated in that way, and we decided one way on another thing because it merited treatment in that way. On this matter we decided not to pay at all the points of the compass but to pay to the manufacturers who made it much easier. This particular subsidy lends itself easily to payment this way. The hon. Gentleman has been misled and has not seen the road along which he was being misled.
This brings me to another point, and a point of substance. We pressed the Minister before about the minimum quantity on which they were going to pay. The Under-Secretary for Scotland originally mentioned 10 cwt. We made our point very courteously and modestly and it was seen to be a good point, and so 10 cwt. has been reduced to 4 cwt. Anyone who can buy fertiliser in 4 cwt. lots gets a subsidy. But take the little men—and I am appealing to the party who believe in the little man; they have said so, and they must have meant it at some time. I appeal, in particular, to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) who must know what is done by the extremely good domestic food organisation in Norfolk.
Any little man who is an allotment holder and who is contributing to the food production of the country will not get the benefit of this subsidy at all unless he buys his fertilisers in 4 cwt. lots. If one is paying at so many points one must have a de minimus Regulation; otherwise the thing defeats one. It gets too complicated and much too big. If the hon. Gentleman paid as he does in Northern

Ireland—and as we did—he could easily make a much smaller plan.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) will be interested to note that under the Northern Ireland Scheme the subsidy is paid on 56 lb. lots; so, so long as fertiliser is made up in a 56 lb. bag, it attracts a subsidy; but anybody buying a 56 lb. bag in England, Scotland or Wales would not get the subsidy. He would have to buy eight 56 lb. bags, all at one time, before he could get the subsidy. What is the reason for that? What point can there be in it? Why is it proper that a user of a 56 lb. bag in Northern Ireland should receive a subsidy, paid by us, and the user of a 56 lb. bag or the 112 lb. bag in England, Scotland and Wales should not get a subsidy? It is absurd. It will take a lot of defending, and I warn the hon. Gentleman that he cannot just ride off on it. He must not ignore it. It is absurd; it is inequitable, and there is no justice in it.
If all the arguments which he has used about the value of this for food production are right it is a deliberate blow at food production here, because a whole lot of people who could be encouraged to use more will not now do so, and we shall lose the benefit of the food which they would otherwise have produced. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this question closely. I think it is one of the major defects in the Scheme, and one of a number because of which he ought not to try to force the Scheme through tonight.
It is quite true that the old Scheme runs out in an hour from now; but no very great tragedy will occur if it does. The Government will still be in position on the Front Bench when that happens. Ten months had elapsed when they brought in the old Scheme, and if we can have 10 months for one Scheme we can easily have a few weeks for this one. I think someone has slipped up here and has not seen what would be the effect of paying the subsidy here in a different way from in Northern Ireland. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter—and I warn him that he will be pressed very heavily from these benches—and to do so before we agree to such an obvious injustice being done.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the differences in this Scheme, as compared


with the previous Scheme, in relation to the question of the subsidies for basic slag. I wonder if the House appreciates what is being done? The hon. Gentleman was good enough to discuss this matter with me earlier, and as he mentioned it I am sure he has no objection to my doing so. The provisions of this Scheme increase the amount of subsidy we pay on the very inferior basic slag.
On basic slag, with a P2 O5 content of 6 per cent., the subsidy goes up; but on good basic slag with a high P2 O5 content the subsidy goes down—and it goes down very heavily indeed. If we take basic slag with a 15 per cent. P2 O5 content we find that under the old Scheme the subsidy was £2 12s. and under the new one it has gone down to £2 4s. 6d. But the very inferior stuff has gone up from £1 9s. to £1 11s. The 17 per cent. has gone down from £3 10s. to £2 9s.
It has been said that some Governments have all the brains and all the ability, though it cannot be said of this one: may I ask them, therefore, in the name of all reason why they are increasing the subsidy to encourage the use of inferior fertiliser and decreasing the subsidy to discourage the use of good fertiliser? Because of the higher subsidy farmers will be encouraged to use this inferior stuff of which there is a good deal about—indeed there are many large heaps waiting to be used—and they will not get the results they expect. They will go around saying that the "know all" chaps from the colleges said they should use it but they had got nothing out of it. The subsidy will be paid to finance these people, but had they insisted on basic slag with a 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. content they would have got an altogether different result.
When the Government prepared this new Schedule I doubt very much whether they really saw that that would be the outcome. The hon. Gentleman referred to the complication of taking away the levy factor. I can well understand that would reduce the price and the subsidy would come down, but what I cannot understand is why it should come down for the inferior type then for the better kind. I believe the answer is that the manufacturers have persuaded the Minister that they have a lot of this stuff hanging about of which they want to dispose.

They find that there is not much of a demand for it, so if the Minister could only subsidise it they would get rid of it altogether. But why should they not reduce the price? Why should we do it for them?
There are objections to this Scheme: they are objections of detail, but substantial detail. There are injustices in it. Whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen accept my point of view is beside the point—and I am aware that many will not—but on the detailed criticism I think it must be agreed that this is a slipshod Scheme produced without any real consideration, which will have different results from those which are claimed for it. It is going to run for two years, though I know the hon. Gentleman said that the Minister will reconsider it in the light of the price review negotiations. We know that means it will become a bargaining counter, and bargaining counters sometimes have the habit of becoming touchstones and very difficult to disturb.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take the Scheme back tonight, because there is no abiding and furious need for it to be passed immediately. Suppose prices come down during those two years? We are told that the subsidy is to be about 30 per cent. on phosphatics and 15 per cent. on nitrogenous fertilisers. But it is stated not as a percentage but as an absolute payment. If prices fall in the two years the Scheme is to run—and I gather from the organs of the Press that support the party opposite that that is likely to happen—then we are committed over that period to a specific amount of subsidy which will mean that as prices fall the percentage we are paying in subsidy will rise. So that if there is a considerable fall, instead of paying 30 per cent. we shall be paying 40 per cent. and perhaps even 50 per cent.
There is no reason, I believe, for making this Scheme in a great hurry, nor for allowing it to run for two years without allowing us an opportunity to review it. Though it could run for that period there is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not make it run for one, as he did with the other Scheme we discussed recently. He should reconsider it because I should have thought there was a good reason why this specific amount ought not be established for two years.
I believe it to be a badly drafted and slipshod Scheme. I accept that this is a borderline case, and that many people think it is a good thing to pay a subsidy on fertilisers, and I would not press my objections on principle too strongly. But I press them on these detailed injustices, inaccuracies and bad arrangements in the Scheme and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to take it back for reconsideration, for which there is plenty of time.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I feel very shy in an agricultural debate and my main disqualification for speaking is that I do a little farming, but only in the sand, where we use seaweed instead of fertiliser. There was a well-known lady, unfortunately not a Member of this House, called Rosa Dartle, and there is a Rosa Dartle question that I want to ask about basic slag. I have always understood that basic slag was the refuse which was left over when one finished making steel, and that one thing that one did not, and does not, want in steel is phosphoric acid.
I have a lot of trouble in getting rid of all the tins and things in the countryside, and I have not yet succeeded in getting anybody to pay me large sums for the tins and to pay me an even larger sum the worse and more useless the tins are. It seems to me that the steel makers are doing remarkably well out of this business. I am not an expert at what I think are called agronomics, but does it not work like this? The steel maker has a lot of bulky useless refuse which he has got out of his ore or raw material in order to make steel. He has to persuade someone to buy it from him. The only person he can persuade is the agriculturist, because we have the authority of the Parliamentary Secretary that basic slag cannot be used for anything else, and I am sure the Ministry of Agriculture know all about that.
Then the farmer says, "But you are asking too much for it. I cannot afford to pay that price." Sure enough, as we had explained to us, the quantity taken by farmers falls in consequence. One would have thought that, wedded as are right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the laws of supply and demand and the principles of free enterprise, somewhere about then the iron and

steel merchant would have said, "I do not want this stuff. It gets in my way. If you cannot afford to pay as much as that for it, what can you afford to pay? At what price can I induce you to take more?" But it does not seem to work that way.
A benevolent Government, from whichever side of the House it may be, steps in and says, "In these circumstances what we do is to subsidise the basic slag." That is to say, we join with the farmer in paying the iron and steel merchant a higher price for his bulky and useless refuse—useless from his point of view—than he would otherwise get. The fact presumably is that, since it costs more, then, whether by way of taxes or food prices somebody will pay more. For whose benefit? The iron and steel merchant's. I am not an expert on agronomics, but I should like to know why, in these circumstances, the price is not reduced, instead of being subsidised.
One more thing. I follow this basic slag across the sea to Northern Ireland. It must have crossed the sea, because it seems to have got a lot more expensive on the way and to attract an even larger subsidy. This refuse is very curious stuff. Valueless and an encumbrance at the steel works, it attracts a subsidy that grows larger and larger the further away you take it; and it attracts the subsidy notwithstanding the fact that all other phosphates do not seem to go up in price. Why has it to be sent to Northern Ireland if it is all wanted here? Why is there a different rate there and here?
I am sorry to be ignorant about these things. But the House is full of farmers, and I am sure they will be able to tell me that it depends on the seasons, the method of farming, or the cycle of crops, and that for that reason the Government must pay an extra amount for the benefit of the iron and steel manufacturer, so that the farmer shall be induced to use more basic slag.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: I never thought that I should take part in an agriculture debate, but I must intervene to correct the fantastic argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the steel trade and its huge profits from basic slag.
The facts are simple. Basic slag is a by-product of the manufacture of steel, and with the development of the Bessemer process this by-product has conferred upon British agriculture a great boon and blessing. The value of basic slag to agriculture is well known to everyone connected with British farming. It is also well known that in many cases the steel manufacturers are pressed—and in the war were compelled—to crush and grind basic slag which it would have suited their purpose much better to have discarded upon the tips.
The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be under the impression that slag, as a by-product of steel, is rubbish to be tipped into a truck and sold at a fancy price, plus the subsidy. The truth is that basic slag has to go through a considerable process before it is used on the land. It has to be worked to very fine chemical limits.
I am not going to answer the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) with regard to the varying subsidies and qualities, but he knows, as he once occupied a place on the Treasury Bench, why these things are done. In this respect, the steel trade is performing a national function, and the margins that it enjoys, if they exist at all, are small. In many instances, the slag is ground and delivered to the agricultural industry in the national interest.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I agree with the principle behind the Scheme, because it seems to me to do something towards encouraging good farming. The increased costs which have been such a feature of farmers' accounts have been such that some farmers, as the figures quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary show, have economised in their consumption of fertilisers. One of the best ways of increasing output per acre is the use of artificial manures in balance with the humus of farmyard manure. Unfortunately, this has decreased. One reason this subsidy is good is that it will encourage those using these fertilisers to continue to use a large quantity, and those who stopped using them during the last 12 months to start using them again.
It has been shown that combine drilling, that is, drilling the seed with the

artificial manure, will increase the yield of corn considerably. There are figures to prove this, but they depend very much on the conditions in which the crop is grown. I have one criticism. Like some of my hon. Friends, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) I do not see why the system which the Northern Ireland Scheme establishes, of giving this subsidy to the manufacturer or merchant, should not be applied in England. The continuation of the old system, which is proposed here, will mean a lot of paper and a lot of time.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary says that it gives the farmer an idea of what the real costs are, and of the amount by which he is being assisted; but I do not see that. I ought, perhaps, to declare an interest in this matter as I engage in farming and get some advantage out of this; and I know that when I got my returns, anything from six to nine months after I had actually paid for the fertiliser, I had to search my books to discover what the cheque was for. There was with the cheque no indication of what particular item it related to—basic slag, super-phosphate, or rock phosphate. That is wrong and inefficient.
The better system is that suggested in the other Scheme. Nevertheless, I think that this will, in the long run, encourage good farming. I prefer this way of doing it to assisting the end product, a method which is of as great advantage to the lazy farmer as to the good farmer. This encourages the man who uses fertilisers in up-to-date scientific cultivation.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I listened with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary's introduction of these Schemes which are designed to pay a subsidy to farmers. Coming at the end of the day as they do, when I have been sitting here for seven hours hoping to speak on food subsidies, I find it an interesting contrast to consider these Schemes.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: The same speech?

Mr. Jeger: Part of it will be.
I have looked for the conditions and terms under which the subsidy is to be paid to the farmers, and see none at all except that the Minister may require to


inspect the fertilisers and accounts, invoices, receipts and other documents. That may well add to the army of inspectors, or snoopers as they are irreverently called. But I see nothing in these Schemes to suggest that there is to be any discrimination in the payment of this subsidy.
In fact, the subsidy is to be paid to the farmers irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, whether they have a large bank balance or a small bank balance, in contradistinction to the arguments we have heard all day that it is iniquitous that a subsidy should be received by a food consumer who happens to be rich. The food subsidies had to be adjusted to make that philosophy of the Tory Party operable. That seems to display a contradiction in the way in which the party opposite, now in Government, are looking at the question of subsidies. We expect them to bring the same principle to bear in regard to these subsidies as they have been arguing all day on food subsidies.

Mr. Speaker: The question of whether or not a subsidy for fertilisers should be paid is a matter settled by the parent Act and the hon. Member cannot argue against that because it was the decision of the House. The Scheme merely sets out the method by which it shall be administered.

Mr. Jeger: I am not disputing your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I would be the last to do that but, with all respect, I would point out that the Scheme says that the Minister may make the contribution to the purchaser in regard to the amount of the fertiliser produced by him without reference whatever to the financial circumstances of the purchaser or of the association, if he is not the actual occupier of the land. It is to the lack of any condition with regard to the means of the farmer that I am addressing myself.
I was going to suggest that there should perhaps be a means test and that the method by which the Minister may prescribe the payment of the subsidy should be dependent on the farmer being actually in need of it. We cannot have the rich farmer drawing subsidies he perhaps does not need. I am quite in favour of the medium or poor farmer drawing it to help and encourage him to make the best possible use of the land and, naturally, he needs the fertiliser for that purpose.
If we are to adopt the indiscriminate method of subsidies to farmers we should also allow the consumer of food to be in receipt of subsidy in the same way. Or is it to be held that it is necessary to subsidise the production but not the consumption of food? If we are not looking at the consumption end of the matter we are neglecting the work of the production end and in effect wasting some of the subsidy which is to be paid under these Schemes.
There is another danger in the Government's attitude over these Schemes; that of driving a wedge between town and country in a way which in the past we have deplored and tried our best to avoid. We have tried to bring about a greater understanding between them, an appreciation of the problems of agriculture in the towns, and vice versa, in order that the whole community should work together for the prosperity of the whole country and the better welfare and lives of our people. This, on the other hand, will drive a mental wedge between the people in the town and the people in the country, when the recipients of the food in the towns feel they are being asked to pay increased prices for food because of the withdrawal of food subsidies, whilst they see the farmers receiving increased subsidies which send up the price of food upon which they depend.
I ask the Government to consider again whether they should not withdraw these Schemes and submit them again in a better form, more in line with their own logical arguments which they have been pursuing all day long. I ask them to consider giving to the farmer a subsidy only when he obviously deserves it and needs it.
Another aspect of this matter is that the life of the Scheme is stated as two years. The Government are asking the farmer to plan ahead on the basis of the subsidy as set out in the Schedule, but there are many farmers who are a little chary of planning far ahead because they have not security of tenure on their land. I would direct the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to a recent case at Winchester where a tenant farmer was given notice to quit by a wealthy landlord. That notice was confirmed by the Ministry and then, as a result of a long drawn out and expensive case before the tribunal, that confirmation


and the notice to quit were reversed. But the wealthy landlord has announced that he intends to serve notice to quit again.

Mr. Speaker: This is really very far away from the Scheme which we are discussing.

Mr. Jeger: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to relate the two-year life of the subsidy to the possibility of a tenant farmer taking advantage of it only if he has security of tenure of his land.
I was going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if it came within the bounds of order, whether he would try to ensure greater security to tenant farmers in view of the fact that he is giving them in this Scheme an inducement of a long-term subsidy. If they could be guaranteed that they would remain in possession of their land for two years or longer this subsidy would have the stimulating effect which the Minister is anxious for it to have.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I wish to make only two short points on this Scheme. The first follows from something which was said by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger). It is that this type of subsidy, as indeed is the case with guaranteed prices, helps the rich farmer who is making fairly large profits on reasonably good land as much as it does the poorer farmer who is in some difficulty in buying sufficient fertilisers.
In my own constituency, and in the North of Scotland generally, one of the reasons why farmers need assistance is that being far away from railheads and main ports they have very heavy freight charges. At present a great many fertilisers are delivered to various terminal points in Great Britain at the same price, under an arrangement made by the manufacturers. One of these points is Kirkwall, in my own constituency. But when they are carried from those points, the extra cost of transport is added to the cost which the user has to pay, and it is considerable.
I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether, when he watches the working of the Scheme, he will see if some means cannot be devised

to help the crofters and the small farmers who have to pay these extra transport costs. They are people who certainly should use more fertilisers and whom this Scheme should encourage to put more manure on their land. I notice that apparently there is an extra subsidy for basic slag in Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that has anything to do with the cost of transport to Northern Ireland or not. But I expect it has. Why not help for the North of Scotland then?
I was also struck by the fact that the subsidy becomes lower as the quality of the basic slag becomes higher. It has always been the custom in the Highlands of Scotland to buy the highest quality of basic slag, because, if you are going to pay transport anyway, you may as well pay it on good quality slag. While I understand the reason for some differential I am rather puzzled why the difference is so large.
The other point I wanted to make is to return to this matter of filling the forms. Certainly, on going round my constituency it does seem that a considerable number of crofters are failing to get subsidies they ought to get and so lose a chance to improve their land simply either because they do not fill up forms or cannot fill them up correctly. I do not want to stress this point unduly but there are a number who are in difficulty over the forms. If you are working all day on a small croft and you are not a very highly educated man this can be a difficulty.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The merchant fills in the form. All the farmer has to do is sign his name.

Mr. Grimond: I was just going to say that. It is largely the custom for the merchant to fill in the form and for the farmer to sign his name. Even so, the obligation falls on the crofter, and he has to let the merchant know he desires this fertiliser.
Only the week-end before last I was talking to one of the largest, if not the largest, merchant in Orkney and he said it was perfectly true that a number of people were not getting all the subsidy they could because of this difficulty of forms. I do not know whether the solution is to put the whole burden on the merchant and let him draw the subsidy, or more publicity or what, but the


difficulty has been brought to my attention and if the hon. Gentleman can say anything about it I would be glad.
One last point. If he could give some advice on disposal of tins as requested by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that would be very valuable indeed. Certainly I, like him, suffer from a severe glut of tins. Is there any chance of a subsidy for their disposal?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about tins in this Scheme.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary for Scotland now realise that a good many of us have grave doubts about these Schemes. Many of us expressed grave doubt about the wisdom of this policy when the Bill was going through. However, the House took a decision on that and we are obliged now, not to consider whether a fertiliser subsidy is a good thing or not, but whether this fertiliser subsidy is a good thing or not.
I suggest that sufficient reasons have been given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and other hon. Friends to induce the Government to tell us soon that they will take these Schemes away, give some thought to them and bring forward other Schemes that are more acceptable to the House generally.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has just been talking about transport costs in his constituency. I think that when we were discussing this Bill I called his attention to the fact that his constituency was a bit further away than Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland gets a higher subsidy. The hon. Gentleman's constituency does not. What does the Under-Secretary for Scotland say about that one?
How can he come to this House tonight and justify a higher subsidy for basic slag used in Northern Ireland than is to be paid to the farmer and crofter who use basic slag in Orkney and Shetland? The costs to the farmer in Orkney and Shetland will exceed those to the farmer in Northern Ireland, and I should have thought that would be a very good reason for the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland at least to nudge his hon. Friend and ask whether they had not

better have another look at this Scheme after all.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the convenience it would be if the distributor or the manufacturer or the importer made application to receive the subsidy rather than that each small farmer and crofter should do so. The hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) seemed to think there was a very simple answer to that, but I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary gave the best answer of the lot when he explained that the reason why the subsidy is to be paid to the manufacturer or importer in Northern Ireland is that it is a great convenience to pay the subsidy to a small number rather than a very large number.
What some of us have argued in the earlier stages of the consideration of this matter of fertilisers is that that is the method which should be adopted in the country as a whole. It was adopted for any part of the country in the first scheme. It is now being adopted for Northern Ireland. Why not for England, Wales and Scotland? Why not for the crofters of Shetland, the Western Isles and the Highlands? Why not for the small farmers all over the country? Why should the subsidy not be paid to the person who distributes rather than to each smallholder?
What would be a great advantage to the users of these fertilisers is this: if the merchant is able to make application for and to receive the subsidy, the subsidy can be paid on much smaller quantities. We were told, earlier, that the reason why it would be difficult to pay a subsidy on less than 10 cwt. was the administrative inconvenience of receiving and dealing with applications from people who receive less than 10 cwt. However, the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland were able to produce a Scheme providing for paying the subsidy in respect of quantities right down to four cwt., and that went for the whole of the United Kingdom.
But when the Government brought forward this new Scheme for Northern Ireland, and were able to provide that applications will be received from and subsidies will be paid to the merchants instead of to the individual users, they were able to provide that the subsidies would be paid on packages of 56 lb.


or more, so that the subsidy can be paid to those people because it is being paid in this convenient way through the merchants on quantities of 56 lb.
Why cannot we have that system operating throughout the whole of the country? Why can we not get it for England, Wales and Scotland? Why cannot the smallholders and crofters in different parts of the country be treated as generously as the small farmers in Northern Ireland? There seems no reason for this differential treatment at all.
I have to tell the Parliamentary Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State that I have very grave doubt whether this subsidy was introduced to help the agricultural industry at all. We have spent some time discussing basic slag—where it comes from, why it is used for agriculture, the advantage to agriculture of the by-product of the steel industry.
We had these subsidies promised, in the first place, because of the steep rise in the price of phosphates after July of last year. Did the cost of basic slag go up steeply in July last year, or at any time from July last year to the present time? I should have thought not. If it did, for what reason was it? After the subsidy is paid are the farmers going to be paying more or less for their basic slag than they did a year ago? We should like to know. I do not know. I have no idea at all.
It appears to some of us—and it does seem to be so if one studies the Schedules to these two Schemes—that the Government are deliberately giving a higher subsidy than the present one in respect of the low-content basic slag, and for the simple reason that the producers of basic slag are finding it exceedingly difficult to get rid of their waste material. But it is another industry altogether which is being subsidised here, and not agriculture at all. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State will have to bring forward some powerful arguments if they are to convince us that these Schemes are ones which should receive the approval of the House tonight.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary—I think he is to reply—tell us what will be the cost of the new phosphatic fertiliser subsidy? Will he tell us what will be the

cost of the new nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy? We will then do the little sum ourselves and see what is the total cost. We want to know what allowance was made for this in the Annual Price Review. The White Paper gave a figure of £7.5 million; but the Minister, speaking in the debate on food, said that he had allowed £10 million.
We want to know what the sum is; we are entitled to know. The farmers are entitled to know what sum was set aside. Was the White Paper telling the truth when these prices were fixed after the annual negotiations? Was a sum of £7.5 million taken out of the sum to be paid in guaranteed prices and given in this form? Do these two Schemes now provide that a sum of £7.5 million per year will be paid directly or indirectly to the farmers?

Captain Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a calendar year or a fertiliser year?

Mr. Fraser: I am not going to enter into a foolish academic discussion on whether it is a calendar year or a fertiliser year. I suggest that it should be a year of 12 months; but perhaps that would be rather too difficult for the hon. and gallant Member.
We understood from the Minister that this Scheme was to cost £10 million a year, by which I think he meant a year of 12 months. The White Paper said it was £7.5 million, although the cost on 1st September was to be £5.4 million. We want to know what these Schemes are to cost us and it is normal for us to be told that almost in the first sentence of the speech of whoever it is who asks the House to approve a Scheme such as this.
It is ridiculous at this time that we should have a Scheme which fixes for the next two years, the sum to be paid per ton of fertiliser of different kinds. One could have understood it if the Government had said, "We will pay a certain percentage of the cost of fertilisers over a period," but to say, "We will pay fixed sums over a certain period" seems to be quite absurd. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "Of course, we are asking the House to approve this Scheme to run for two years," but the Minister always has the right, between now and the next Annual Review, to have further thoughts about this, and if he


wishes to bring forward a Scheme with different subsidies he is perfectly free to do so. The trouble is that he is the only person free to do it. If the Scheme is approved tonight none of us will be free to offer any comment on it before 1954. I think that is wrong.
I argued in the Committee stage of the Bill that these schemes should not run for more than 12 months because we have an Annual Price Review, and because each year there must be discussions with the leaders of the farmers as to what amount of money ought to be paid to them in prices and what proportion of the total amount should be paid in subsidies. But what will happen when the price of fertilisers changes? Will the Minister come to the House and say, "Please may we have another Scheme, with different subsidies?"
What the farmers are asking for is that the cost of production should be kept stable and steady, and, of course, if prices were kept steady everything in the garden would be lovely. It is a pity that the Minister responsible for the co-ordination of food and agriculture could not get the Ministry of Food to accept the policy the Ministry of Agriculture is adopting. They seem to be travelling in opposite directions.
It is clear that there are many who do not like these Schemes in their present form. It is not good enough to bring forward at the same time two Schemes that are so different, and which provide for the subsidies being paid out to different people altogether and also that the minimum quantity for getting the subsidy shall be 56 lb. in Northern Ireland and 4 cwt. in the Highlands of Scotland or other parts of this country. That is wrong, and the Parliamentary Secretary should get up and tell the House that he will take the two Schemes back, give them further consideration and come back with them when he has had adequate time to consider what is involved in them.

11.43 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I shall not detain the House very long, but there are two points I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary in illustrating my fear that this Scheme will militate against the use of basic slag in the heavy clay land in that part of Essex in which I have, and must disclose, an interest. One of the disadvantages of basic slag is that it takes

a very long time to operate, and the uninformed farmer tends to disregard it as an effective fertiliser. A great deal of propaganda and education are necessary to make him appreciate how valuable it is.
In our part of the country we use basic slag to the extent of 3 cwt., 4 cwt. or 5 cwt. an acre on last year of a ley, but because it is slow acting its value is not immediately apparent to the farmer. It is no good using basic slag on land of this character unless it has a high P2 O5 content—14 per cent. or 15 per cent. What will now happen is that the farmer will find that the subsidy he got last year on basic slag of 14 or 15 per cent. P2 O5 will suffer a reduction of 5s. and 7s. 6d. respectively. So he will be attracted more to the use of inferior fertilisers of 6 or 7 per cent. P2 O5 instead of spending money wisely on the efficient fertilisers.
What is the purpose of giving an additional advantage to the farmer in an attempt to get him to use inferior quality fertilisers? Has somebody got large dumps of this stuff which they want to release? Is that the purpose? It is outrageous to carry on an educational campaign telling the farmer to use fertilisers soundly and properly if he is then subsidised to use the worst kind of fertiliser.
There is no subsidy for the Northern Ireland farmer to use the inferior basic slag. The subsidy for Northern Ireland starts with 14 per cent. P2 O5—not from 6 per cent. to 14 per cent. is it suggested that the 6 per cent. to 14 per cent. is all right for the English, Scottish and Welsh farmer, but is not good enough for the Northern Ireland farmer? Why is it right to induce the farmers in Britain to use an inferior fertiliser but wrong to use an inferior fertiliser in Northern Ireland?
If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to see basic slag used properly in this country, I beg him to realise that the whole insistence should be on using a properly balanced basic slag and not the rubbish which is being subsidised in this fashion.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I think I have noted most of the points raised in the discussion and perhaps I may first take the basic slag plot, which has grown thicker as the debate has proceeded. The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) made a


point which, I think, went a long way to answering his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—that although basic slag is of great value agriculturally, as many of us understand, farmers have always been rather reluctant to use it as fully as they might. It is slow acting, and therefore the less progressive have not been as ready to use it as they might have been. They have needed some encouragement to use it, and they have had that encouragement for many years.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but he has not understood my point. I am not disputing the value of basic slag to the farmer. What I am asking is why the price has to be reduced by a subsidy instead of getting the iron and steel merchants to reduce it. I am left unimpressed by the moving picture painted by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown) of the iron and steel merchants working hard on the basic slag outside the steel works.

Mr. Nugent: The general question of whether the subsidy should be applied to the end product—to the fertiliser—or by means of higher commodity prices to the farmer is basic. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering shakes his head, but that is very germane. It is no use the Ministry of Agriculture or anybody else telling the slag makers that they must reduce the price of their basic slag to a level at which the farmers will take it if they say they cannot produce below a certain level.

Mr. T. Fraser: Has the price gone up?

Mr. Nugent: In fact it has gone down, and I am about to give the House information as to what the price has been, which will help to explain some problems which have been troubling hon. Members about the Schedule.
I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is obviously sincerely bewildered, that we have done what can be done to persuade them to reduce their price. We have persuaded them to go as far as they are able, and the element of subsidy we are now proposing is what is necessary to get the farmers to take up the supply available.
To come to the specific problems of the basic slag price. I was asked by

the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) whether basic slag prices have gone up or down. They have done both. Under the last price schedule, on 5th June the low-grade slag prices have gone up slightly and the high-grade have gone down. Thus, low-grade slag, which has a relatively low agricultural value, has become less attractive and the high-grade slag has become more attractive.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is there any reason why the low-grade slag has gone up while the high-grade slag has gone down?

Mr. Nugent: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I may be able to enlighten him further. In this last price schedule, dated 5th June, a firm attempt was made to try and relate this schedule—which is fixed in consultation with the Ministry of Materials—to the actual fertiliser value of the various grades of slag. We believe we have got it to a more realistic schedule than in the previous schedule, and the subsidy schedules are, of course, related to them. That is why to some extent they seem rather difficult to understand without looking at price schedules as well.

Mr. G. Brown: If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman say why one gets almost exactly twice as much subsidy per centum for the inferior end of the scale as compared with the useful end of the scale?

Mr. Nugent: If the right hon. Gentleman can restrain his impatience, I am just trying to explain that point.
To make the picture clear, here is an example. On the 6 per cent. slag, the price under the late schedule was £4 8s. 6d. and, under the new one, £4 14s., a significant increase in price; on the 14 per cent., the prices are £7 9s. 6d. and £6 10s. So there is a substantial reduction in price on the high grade slag, and the difference is even higher on the higher grades.
The right hon. Gentleman was asking me to explain the basis of these basic slag schedules in these two Schemes. Basic slag is made up to a large extent of lime. Its content of lime is about 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., in addition to the known quantity of phosphoric acid, which will vary from 6–20 per cent. There are also various valuable trace elements, particularly manganese, which


have a particular value when they are applied to farm land. The lime itself is also valuable. The size of application is very much smaller than is normally put on with a lime application, but it is of distinct agricultural value both in the lime and trace elements.
The attempt is made here to relate this subsidy to the complete value of the fertiliser, which is the phosphoric acid. Therefore, there is a basic value, and it is from that that the 6 per cent. starts. The right hon. Gentleman is not getting a true picture if he simply divides the 6 per cent. into the 31s. at which it starts. He will have noticed that, starting at this low per cent., 1s. 6d. is allowed as each additional per cent. is added, whereas, at the top end of the scale, it goes up to 3s. The subsidy gets heavier as the phosphoric content rises.
With the great deal of care that has been given to the price schedules and the subsidy schedules I think we have a balance which is about right now—first of all in getting the price schedules related to the fertiliser values, and the subsidy schedules properly related—to encourage the greater use of the higher phosphoric acid basic slag.
With regard to the price differential for Northern Ireland, the point there is that the basic slag has to travel from England as the finished product, and there is, therefore, that additional freight element, whereas the raw material for the super-phosphate comes in the form of rock phosphate from North Africa. The cost of the shipping freight rate from North Africa to Northern Ireland is not substantially greater than from North Africa to Liverpool or London. It is on that account that the higher amount is allowed.
The right hon. Member for Belper asked for figures of cost. He is right that on the current Scheme, which is to end in about two minutes, the cost has worked out at £5.4 million on Price Review commodities. It is true that it was estimated, when the Scheme was designed, that the off-take of fertilisers would be that much higher than the original amount which my right hon. Friend estimated would be taken up. The two Schemes before the House are designed on the basis of the price award at the last Price Review, which gave a sum of £10 million to farmers for this purpose. That £10

million is the total sum. That sum is made up in this way—£7,500,000 applied to the Price Review commodities, £1,900,000 to horticultural commodities making a total of £9.4 million.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what increase there will be on account of the nitrogen being included and the answer is that all these estimates have been drawn up on the basis of the 1951–52 consumption, the year now ending. If consumption runs at the same level we shall use exactly the same amounts, if it is less we shall use less, and if more we shall use more. But we anticipate that the margin we have left should cover any increase over the estimate if such should occur.

Mr. G. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that, but on the original Scheme, which I understand to be the £5.4 million actually spent in 1951–52 as against the £10 million allowed for in the special Review last year does that mean £4.6 million which the farmers were entitled to under the Review but which, in fact, they never had?

Mr. Nugent: The £5.4 million was in respect of Review commodities only and there would be an addition to that of—I have not the exact figures—£1 million of £1½ million probably in respect of non-Review Commodities. But to that extent the farmers have actually received that much less than the award which is entirely due to the fact that they did not take up the amount of fertilisers we hoped they would.
On the question of the minimum quantity allowed in Northern Ireland, which is, of course, intimately bound up with the question of whether it is to be the manufacturers' scheme as in Northern Ireland or the farmers' scheme as in England, Wales and Scotland, I can only reiterate that we feel that the advantage of the farmer paying the actual cost of the fertiliser and then claiming the subsidy that was due was such that it was worth the extra administrative trouble. It is a matter of opinion which is the best but we felt that this was the best for England, Wales and Scotland.
In Northern Ireland they are, naturally, free to make their own decision and they feel, particularly with the small number of merchants, that it would suit them


best if they had the manufacturers' scheme. It is possible to argue a very good case on either side and I congratulate hon. Members opposite on the force with which they have argued the case from their side.

Mr. G. Brown: Which I reciprocate.

Mr. Nugent: I am sure that the generous nature of the right hon. Gentleman will get the better of him shortly.
On the question of the half hundred-weight which has been alluded to this was drafted in this form so that it must be more than half a hundredweight which means that a half hundredweight bag would not qualify. In fact, it pushes the amount up to a cwt. Under the manufacturers' scheme quantity may be reduced to something less than 4 cwt. but it was felt that, on balance, it was better to have the farmers' scheme in England, Wales and Scotland. We are open to be persuaded by practice and will see over the next 12 months how the two schemes operate. If it seems on balance that the manufacturers' scheme is better we shall have that advantage of seeing the two schemes operating alongside and can propose the next Scheme in a different form.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised the two-year period. We shall, of course, take into account, next year, what is the right disposition in regard to fertiliser prices and shall not hesitate to propose a new Scheme at different rates, according to what seems necessary. I believe that there is an intrinsic value in a subsidy of this kind. That being so, the farming community has something which will help to give farmers confidence and cause them to use all the fertilisers available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what would happen supposing we stimulate domestic consumption of nitrogen to the higher level. The answer is that we have been exporting something like 50,000 to 60,000 tons of nitrogen annually and if we have not used an amount intended for the home market then to that extent there is more for the Colonies. But that basic amount is reserved for the Colonies, so their needs will be substantially met even if we are able to increase our own demand at home.
I should like to say one or two words on the argument, which was put very forcibly from the other side of the House, that this Scheme will really benefit the manufacturers and not the farmers. Fortunately, I can give the right hon. Member for Belper the assurance for which he asked on one point. I hope that I shall not disappoint him in being able to give it. It is that we have been looking very carefully at the manufacturers' margin, particularly the compound margin. Discussions are going on at present and I cannot commit myself tonight, but I can say that I am not unhopeful that the outcome may show a trend in the direction which we desire.

Mr. G. Brown: If it shows a reduction in the total price will the subsidy then be reduced?

Mr. Nugent: The subsidy on the compounds is not directed to the compounding costs, and, therefore, the subsidy will not be affected; but I hope that it will make some significant difference to what at present seem to be very high margins on compounding costs. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the Minister of Materials is looking at the matter very closely and I hope that he will have something to say on it in the near future.
On the general picture, as to whether it was advisable to make the price award of £10 million, as it was in this case, by way of higher commodity prices, or by a specific subsidy of this kind, that, once again, is a matter of opinion. The right hon. Member for Belper knows that on the Second Reading of the Bill his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave the Bill quite kindly support. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Belper will be the first to acknowledge that opinions differ, even on his side. I understand his point of view, but at the end of the day it must be a matter of personal judgment in each case whether a subsidy will secure higher production at lower cost than would higher end prices.
It will not do to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) and say that it is not right to subsidise the rich farmer and the poor farmer and that the subsidy should be directed to the poor farmer only. I assure him that if the award is made by


means of higher end prices it is without question the big farmer who is getting the bigger slice of the cake, because of his bigger crops and yields and his generally lower costs than the small farmer on difficult land, with his less than average yield and his higher costs.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister agree that we would get higher production from the farmer, rich or poor, big or small, if he were paid on the end product because then he would be paid for what he produces?

Mr. Nugent: There is no danger at all of the fertiliser subsidy going to waste. Once the fertiliser is applied to the land it will undoubtedly grow a bigger crop. I feel that, of all the specific subsidies, the House can look upon this one with the greatest confidence as one which, with the minimum expenditure of money, will give the community the greatest return, and far greater than it would if applied as a higher end price on particular commodities.
I think I have covered the various points that have been raised and I therefore ask the House to approve the two Schemes.

Resolved,
That the Draft Fertilisers (England, Wales and Scotland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Draft Fertilisers (Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (FIELD DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Agriculture (Field Drainage and Water Supplies) Continuation of Grants Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

12.11 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I certainly do not intend to take anything like the time my hon. Friends took over the last Scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that would be a very popular statement

to make at this time of the morning. They obviously had a very different thing to deal with than I have. This is a continuation of something that was part of the Act of 1947, and We on this side welcome the continuation of these grants, because, obviously, they serve an essential agricultural purpose.
I do not think anyone, however he does his farming, even if he does it from the window of a railway carriage, can have any doubt about the necessity for the continuation, particularly of the field drainage grant. Much has been accomplished. Much remains to be done. But we should welcome a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary—and I rather hoped he would give it in introducing this Order—giving some idea of the extent of the land covered by these grants over, say, the last five years, the cost to the Exchequer of these grants, and if he could give us any useful estimate of the land that might be brought under the scheme during the two years this is going to be extended.
I think it right that the House should have that information on the introduction of an Order such as this. It is absolutely essential to clean milk and sound farming that we should have clean water brought to the farms and that we should make grants for this purpose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in talking about subsidising fertilisers, suggested it was rather a subsidy to the manufacturer than the farmer himself. I am sure that he would not say in this case that we were making a subsidy to the water authority rather than the farmer, who will receive the benefit of the water.
In this connection I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us if there is that co-operation and consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Local Government in connection with the supply of domestic water and water for agricultural purposes which obtained under the last Government; and whether they are, in fact, getting together to make this form of grant a joint grant in cases where the supply being laid on does serve the double purpose of the domestic supply and the supply for agricultural purposes.
The last point I would like to ask him is the simple one of what sort of piped supplies are they now receiving. Are


they making up any deficiencies, any accumulation of delay, and so on, or are they getting deliveries of pipes which are diminishing rather than adding to the length of time that it takes to get these Schemes completed?
I understand that the rate of grant in these Schemes is fixed by the Minister, in consultation with the Treasury; that is, subject to Treasury approval. Is it the Minister's intention to continue these grants at about the same level as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was applying them? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to these questions briefly for the sake of us all. If he does that, I am sure we shall be able to part with this Order.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. Nugent: I can reply briefly to the points that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has raised. I have got the figures for the last 11 years, 1941–51, during which time over 200,000 ditching schemes were completed and grants totalling £4¾ million were paid. During that period 70,000 tile schemes were completed and nearly £2¾ million was paid in grants. Nearly 22,000 mole draining schemes were completed in the same period, with Exchequer grants of nearly £600,000. It is proposed to carry on the grants at the same rate as has existed up till now.

Mr. Grimond: Do those figures include Scotland?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, they do. I cannot give an estimate for the land which might come under cultivation as a result of the work over the next two years, but I have every reason to think that the rate of application will continue at about the same rate that we have been having. But I am anxious to try to get some sort of spot check to give us a picture of what is happening on these drainage schemes.
Up to the end of last year over 53,000 water supply schemes had been approved for grant aid and about 42,000 of these had actually been completed. Grants approved amount to just over £5 million and payments to £4¼ million. The posi-

tion with regard to pipes seems to be fairly satisfactory for these water schemes. We have a national pipe emergency pool at Peterborough, and where there is a scheme of special priority we draw upon that in order to ensure that the work is done without delay.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that, on his last point, exactly the same system for co-operation and consultation as existed under the previous Administration still exists between my Department and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. I hope that the House will now be ready to approve the Order.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I renew a plea which I have already made to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, relating to the position of drainage in Shetland? We got a slightly larger percentage there for drainage than was given for other parts of Britain. That percentage has recently almost disappeared. We possess in these islands of Orkney and Shetland up-to-date machinery for land drainage—the only up-to-date machinery outside the mainland of Scotland. It can do a lot of work which is particularly urgently needed in Shetland, which is a crofting county with a lot of waterlogged land. That work is now being jeopardised because the owner cannot operate the machinery at an economic rate with the present rate of grant.
If we could even have the old differential between Shetland and the mainland restored, I am certain it would be well worth it, not only from the point of view of Shetland itself but from the point of view of the country in regard to extra food production. It is not a question into which steel supplies enter very much as much of the work can be done with plastic drains. The equipment is there and the material for the drains is there. All that is holding us back is the lack of a slightly increased grant which would make this work economic.

Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Field Drainage and Water Supplies) Continuation of Grants Order, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise certain increases in the case of pensions to which the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1944 to 1947, apply, and of certain other pensions (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
A. Any sums required to defray expenditure under any provisions of the Act relating to pensions payable wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the National Insurance Fund or the. National Insurance (Existing Pensioners) Fund or charged upon the Consolidated Fund, being provisions authorising the payment, in respect of any such pension beginning (as defined by the Act) before such date as may be specified therein and payable to or for the benefit of a pensioner whose annual income (as ascertained in accordance with the Act) appears to the pension authority not to exceed five hundred and fifty pounds in the case of a pensioner who is married or has at least one dependant and four hundred and twenty-five pounds in the case of any other pensioner, of an increase, payable as from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, at such annual rate as may be specified in the Act (being a rate related to the time at which the pension begins) and in any case not exceeding one-third of the annual rate of the pension and not exceeding the amount necessary to increase the annual income of the pensioner (as ascertained as aforesaid) to five hundred and fifty pounds or four hundred and twenty-five pounds, as the case may be, any such increase being subject to the like restrictions as are imposed, in relation to increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, by subsections (2) to (4) of section one of that Act;
B. Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any enactment other than the Act which is attributable to provisions of the Act

(1) authorising the payment of any such increase as is mentioned in paragraph A of this Resolution in respect of any such pension as is mentioned in that paragraph or in respect of any pension payable out of the Education (Scotland) Fund;
(2) authorising and requiring the payment, in respect of any other pension specified in the Act, being a pension beginning before such date as may be so specified, of an increase, payable as from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-two, at the like rate and subject to the like restrictions as are mentioned in the said paragraph A;
(3) enabling the Secretary of State to make provision, in the case of certain pensions payable under the enactments relating to firemen and police firemen, for increases not exceeding the highest increases authorised by the Act in the case of other pensions of the like amounts (including provision for the re-assessment

of pensions granted at the higher of two scales), and enabling any order or regulations made for those purposes, or made within one year after the passing of the Act under the enactments relating to pensions of the police, special constables or staff of the Metropolitan Police, to be made with effect from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-two;
(4) applying for the purposes of the Act any provision of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and any enactment authorising Increases or benefits corresponding with the increases authorised by the said Act of 1944 or by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1947.

Orders of the Day — WORLD TRADE (EXPANSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Robson Brown: One of the infinite charms of the House is the variety and change in the debates that we have before us. Tonight I want to speak on the question of the expansion of Communism and the only sure, certain and effective way of dealing with it, which is to strengthen and expand export trade the world over.
The challenge of Communism is threefold: ideological, economic and military. I think we shall be able to contain the Russian armies but I ask the House whether we shall be able to contain also the economic front. With weakened currencies, with signs of further inflation and with dangers of increasing unemployment, the Communists' hard, ruthless ideology would in the end win and there would be no need for Russia's massed battalions on her borders, for she would recruit her armies from the unemployed within our own lands.
I have sought this debate because I think that at present there are unhappy signs that the international unity of the free nations in the economic field is not as strong and effective as it should be. I believe that unless effective action is taken on the completion, reduction or slowing down of re-armament the world, in two or three years' time, may well drift from what is at present a trade recession to another world slump.
We have yet to muster on the economic front the unity, combination and purpose that has given strength to our military defence. I believe that Communism can


only be defeated if we are able to offer economic security, a satisfactory standard of living and increasing personal opportunity to great masses of people the world over. Then only will we be able to contain Communism and to grasp the only sure way to undermine it from within. Communism cannot be defeated by force of arms, but it certainly can be deflated by good example. The present financial vulnerability of Great Britain is a matter of the greatest concern, since if we fail to restore our own economy we shall not be able to play our proper part in the defence against Communism the world over.
Recently, Lord Kirkwood, in a memorable speech, called for a challenging, commanding voice to awaken us to our peril. A few weeks later the Prime Minister, with macabre imagery, warned us that we are standing on a trap-door, and with what relief we heard the Chancellor encourage us to greater efforts by stating that as the result of his quick, emergency action the bolt was still just holding. There is no doubt that we shall win through our present dangers, but we may have to accept an adjustment in our standing of living and recognise that in the future cheap food from abroad is neither possible nor desirable.
We must also have a realignment in our thinking about the relationship of industry to the State. Absolute independence or laissez-faire is no longer generally acceptable. In recent years we have seen the exercise of absolute and rigid centralisation, in nationalisation, and we have seen revealed the fundamental weaknesses of this theory. I believe that the answer lies in industrial accountability. It is not a coincidence that both the late Government and the present one have accepted the idea of a central responsible board to control the steel industry, both agreeing on the advantages of union, management and consumer representation upon it.
I suggest that this idea should be developed and extended for the other basic industries of the country. Management, labour and consumer should be equally concerned, equally informed and equally consulted. To one it is capital to the other livelihood. To the last it is a vital raw material. Capital must be put to the best use: labour must be given

every opportunity, and material must be produced at keen economic costs. This collective responsibility on the part of each industry, managements and unions in each industry would be of powerful value to the Ministers of State and their advisers who have to keep in view the complete moving picture of industrial progress particularly with regard to overseas trade.
In future industry must retain a greater share of its current earnings for re-equipment, or soon it will earn nothing at all. Further we cannot expect people to go on striving unless personal taxation is reduced. The workers want to be confident, and desire to be made confident, that the Government will not tolerate avoidable unemployment. I would suggest that a panel of experts should be set up to make rapid and positive recommendations about future employment trends.
I would like to ask my hon. Friend what methods are Ministers utilising at present to keep themselves continuously informed, region by region, and for the different industries, of the possible redundancies of labour? How up-to-date, and how detailed is this information and is it acted upon? In brief, how sensitive is our economic weather forecasting? How long a warning does the barometer offer before the needle flickers to "Storm"? The country is relying on the Government's economic thinking, and expects it to be vigilant, imaginative and courageous enough for these stormy times.
May I here refer for a moment to the coal industry? It is the mainspring of our international effort. Coal exports are going up and must continue to do so, even if the Government are compelled to keep down to the lowest reasonable level next winter's domestic coal ration, and this should be used to bolster and increase our exports. What the country is asking is for a much sterner economy in the spending of public money and for further reductions in the size of the Civil Service. It is strongly believed that the Civil Service is much too big and costly for our limited and threatened income. It is not a question of an overall cut of 5 per cent. or even 10 per cent., but complete elimination or considerable reduction in some cases, and even a modest expansion in others.
This is the moment when the Government would be well advised to consider setting up an expert panel without delay to consider and examine the cost of the Civil Service. Only quality and price will decide our share of the world markets, and the Civil Service, as it frequently does, usurps the functions of industrialists, and in too many industries there is feather-bedding and easy profit. As I have said only quality and price will decide our share of the world markets, in which we have to face ingenious and fast-moving rivalry. The slogan on the wall of every British factory should be, "Make it cheaper, but make it good."
These points I have raised about our internal economy and Government action are important at this time because of the financial crisis within our country. Moreover, expanding world trade is the greatest single answer to Communism, and the time is now ripe for a world upsurge in demand. In the long run the omens of prosperity are good as population in the free world is steadying, and it is our task to see that the agricultural output continues to increase. A small increase in the purchasing power of the populous Asian countries would carry us beyond another world slump. Far-seeing statesmen in all nations appreciate that prosperity no less than peace is indivisible, but I am afraid that if the recession in trade continues the narrow nationalist view will reassert itself and we shall cease to plan on a world pattern.
Extreme nationalism can be the ruin of the West. The tariff barrier can be a crippling barrier to trade. This is a lesson which the United States must appreciate. At the moment she is the greatest creditor nation in the world and, therefore, she presents to herself and to the world tremendous responsibilities. She should give us an opportunity to pay our way and to pay our debts to her. It is not a good thing for other nations to be under an obligation to one country and the solution rests entirely with the Americans themselves.
I believe that it is our duty wholeheartedly to support any liberal-minded international proposals which the United States advance, and they have advanced many, whereby their huge surpluses can be diverted for the security and the betterment of the free world, and we can only expect them to do this if they, in turn, are confident that in Europe and in the British Commonwealth there is

every sign that we will co-operate and assist.
I believe—and this is one of the main purposes for my speaking in the debate—that we have been too slow to start in Europe, and I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary is making every effort in the direction of bringing Europe together in this way. It is still not too late, I believe, to co-operate more closely with the Schuman bloc, not only in order to stabilise production of steel and coal in Europe but in the hope eventually of preparing no less than a world plan for the expanded production, movement and marketing of the world's steel and coal.
I myself feel that the Schuman Plan in its present form is unnecessarily rigid, and that a more flexible arrangement would be equally effective. Let us take warning in this country from the fact that last month Germany's steel production alone surpassed that of Great Britain. We cannot sit on the fence, watching European steel production growing on one side and the vast American output on the other. We shall all have to work together, in the common interests of all.
No less urgent than steel and coal is the production of food and chemicals. Internationalise these four commodities and we have laid the solid foundation for world stability. No longer can we tolerate dumped low wages or dumped unemployment. We must move forward towards an equalised price structure in the world.
I hold strongly to the view that in all these international trade discussions industrialists should be in the centre of the picture from the very beginning. Since the war there has been a tendency for Ministerial representatives to play too great a part in international trade discussions, and the men of industry not enough. How many in industry can assess the value or know the commitments of Bretton Woods, Dumbarton Oaks, and G.A.T.T.? At the same time these conferences may well commit us beyond redress. In these matters there is a great deal of suspicion because there is a great deal of mis-information.
I also suggest that the Governments of the United Nations should encourage their industrialists to get together without delay, not to set up secret cartels but to think and plan on a world scale, and to discuss openly the stabilisation of trade. In addition, we should realise that the whole problem of international


finance and the development of the backward areas and tariff problems are the responsibility and problems of Governments.
We ourselves have made a great start with the Colombo Plan and the U.S.A. have conceived the International Reconstruction Bank. That is a marvellous concept, commercial, businesslike, and sensible. Huge sums of money have already been wisely expended, and I welcome this departure—not the irresponsible handing over to other Governments of huge sums of money for disposal as they like, but the commercial investigation of the probabilities and the soundness of the schemes. From that great things can grow.
The will is there, the spirit is there, but time is against us. With the falling off, as there may be, we profoundly hope, of the huge cost of re-armament, there will be huge production gaps in a wide range of industries which will have to be filled in this country, in Europe, and in the United States. We must be ready now to swing into the next phase. America must take the lead and we in this country must not be afraid to follow, nor must we fear making a few mistakes. In many of the international negotiations today we are afraid of being outsmarted; we are timid sometimes in our approaches; the courageous pioneering spirit is not always present.
The world has moved through successive periods of free trade and high tariffs and latterly of restricted trade because of Government financial controls and embargoes. This is a dangerous sign. We ourselves have had to impose these controls and embargoes for the sabilising of our currency. They are even more destructive than high tariff barriers. The latter can have gravely ominous consequences, compelling retaliation that comes from all sides.
We must move into a new phase of gradual liberation of trade within the framework of international mutual assistance and co-operation, with controlled responsibility for the distribution of primary goods and services. Trade can never again be left to blind chance, or "beggar-my-neighbour" nationalism, or hard-faced bargaining. With the deep sense of stewardship towards the undeveloped countries comes a magnificent opportunity for British industry not only

to export equipment to new markets, but also to provide skilled instructors to supervise its installation and use.
Let the people follow the plant. We must speed the expansion of facilities for technological training. During this galloping period in world history, Britain should set herself no less an ambition than to become the premier technological training and recruiting ground for the free world. With the new opportunities for training and an abundant scope overseas for the trained men, the British artisan of today has every prospect of becoming the skilled technician of tomorrow. It is the buying power of the peasant and the worker that will decide the level of world trade. By conferring the benefit on them, we benefit ourselves.
It is a challenge and an opportunity to run railways into the Rhodesias, to dam the West African river Volta, to irrigate paddy fields in South-East Asia, to help clear the jungles of Northern Ceylon, and to improve communications in Assam—in fact, to raise the food productivity of all lands. This calls for unprecedented capital expenditure and unprecedented vision, courage, and imagination of a high order. Let us first swiftly and surely resolve our own troubles, and the quicker play our part in the development of our own lands overseas and the backward peoples generally.
I believe that we are in this country linking hands with the United States, that we are moving forward with Europe united by and unfolding to the world a new picture and a new perspective. But, above all, let us not allow the United Nations to follow the course of the old League of Nations.

12.38 a.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Robson Brown), whom I once heard speak many years ago, will excuse me if I say that when he takes on an Adjournment debate he takes a fairly broad view of the situation and makes it a little difficult for me to answer in the few minutes at my disposal. Many of the sentiments that he expressed I agree with, although he cannot expect me to follow them in detail.
I agree with him that the strategic and economic defences of the free world must be co-ordinated. Perhaps it is not sufficiently appreciated that the Committee


known as the "Three Wise Men Committee" has this particular duty to perform and to ensure what would be called, if there were any Members of Her Majesty's Opposition present, fair shares for all. That is the object of this Committee, and I am certain that my hon. Friend is correct in stressing the importance of balancing our strategic and economic responsibilities.
One of the most important issues facing us in the world of trade today is that both sides of industry and the Government must co-operate. It would be a tragedy now if, at this critical stage in our affairs, any one of the three Partners attempted to evade its responsibilities and to get away with passing the buck.
As regards my hon. Friend's remarks about the Civil Service, let me tell him that the object of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Materials is to create a situation in which private enterprise can win the battle for exports. There can be no question of the Government exporting. Exporting is a matter of thousands of transactions, and we must depend on the skill of our industrialists, of those who are working with them, and on the salesmen, to recapture and hold markets in what has become a buyers' market throughout the world.
Perhaps our first duty in dealing with the problems which my hon. Friend has mentioned is to balance our economy and our balance of payments. Until this is done our influence as the greatest importing nation of the world cannot be as great as we would like it to be. We inherited a desperate situation in November. Our reserves were running out at the rate of £150,000 an hour, or £2,500 a minute. We have not won that battle, although things are getting better. If we can win this battle we can start to think of a plan on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member. If we cannot win, the situation for this island home of 50 million people will be extremely difficult.
We have two duties as the pivotal Power of the free world, and the first is to establish our own economy on a sound basis. I do not think that we could ever surrender—I am certain that no Conservative Government would ever surrender—our obligations to our equal partners in the great self-governing Dominions, in the almost self-governing Colonies, and in those more backward areas to which we have still to give self-government and

economic independence by actually entering an international organisation such as the Schuman Plan.
Short of that, the Foreign Secretary has taken every possible step to co-operate in the Schuman Plan. We shall have a delegation watching the development of the Plan, and we shall be closely connected with it. We shall be, as it were, associate members, but not actual members of the club. That seems, at this stage, to be as far as we can go. But let it not be forgotten that it was the Prime Minister, and the present Foreign Secretary and the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, who were largely responsible for the original plan to draw ourselves and Europe closer together.
I do not believe that our other duty is the least important, and that is the maintenance of a close relationship with our friends across the Atlantic. Seldom can any of us refer to the Canadians and Americans without remembering that for nearly five years, three-quarters of the dollar imports on which our country depended, came to us through the generosity of the Canadians and Americans and it makes me sad when some hon. Members of this House seem also to forget the heavy burden which our friends and Allies are bearing now in Korea.
Import cuts have become necessary to countries such as ourselves whose balance of payments has been running in the wrong direction. The European Payments Union was set up in an attempt to make sterling and other Western European currencies mutually convertible, and on the basis of E.P.U. the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation was able to embark on a programme for the progressive liberalisation of trade. Unfortunately, a situation arose in which we were no longer able to press on with this policy, despite the start we had made with liberalisation. We were forced back to a quota system and import cuts.
These are essential, but I realise that this is not the way to solve our long-term problem. The solution is to increase exports, and my hon. Friend was right when he referred to the necessity for increasing the exportable surplus of steel on which the power and influence of this country for good in the world so much depends.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to One o'Clock a.m.